anni septuagesimi

[Gregorius Textor]

Pompeius etiam factus est consul anni septuagesimi (70).

-- William G. Most, Latin by the Natural Method, first year, lesson 26 (p. 53).

Shouldn't this be ablative of time when, 'anno septuagesimo'?

 

[Gregorius Textor]

This too, from lesson 23, p. 47:

Marius electus est consul anni centesimi septimi (107).
should be anno centisimo septimo?

 

[rothbard]

Those sentences aren't correct. I haven't heard of this book, but it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

 

[rothbard]

It's probably OK to write them in a Latin Wikipedia entry, but no ancient Roman writer would have written anything like that. To them, the year was named after the consuls.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

Those sentences aren't correct. I haven't heard of this book, but it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Checking my sanity. I was attracted to the "natural method" that this book uses -- teaching Latin (largely) in Latin -- but have been losing a lot of confidence in it lately. So now I have switched to LLPSI: Familia Romana, which seems to do a much better job of it.

 

[Ybytyruna]

Salvete!

Ipse scripsissem per ablativum, ut fecisti(s).

Titus Livius autem non semel usus est genetivo casu ad struendas sententias non multum istis, quas monstrasti, dissimiles (sed nihilominus dissimiles!). Ut puta:

"consuli tum Caeso Fabius, prioris anni consul (...)"
"L. Lucretius, consul anni prioris, recenti gloria nitens (...)"
"Q. Fabius, insequentis anni consul, bellum ad Sutrium excepit (...)"

Inde fortassis mendum, vel saltem rarior usus ac parum probatus.

 

[Terry S.]

Pompeius etiam factus est consul anni septuagesimi (70).

-- William G. Most, Latin by the Natural Method, first year, lesson 26 (p. 53).

Shouldn't this be ablative of time when, 'anno septuagesimo'?

To be fair, Most isn't trying to teach classical Latin, but Ecclesiastical Latin. I'd say it's perfectly normal for him to use the Christian calendar to date historical dates in a contemporary work. As for the use of the genitive here, I wonder if his point is that Pompey was the consul of 70BC rather than in 70BC. Not the classical way of doing it, but as I said, I don't think he intends to imitate classical usage.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

Salvete!

Ipse scripsissem per ablativum, ut fecisti(s).

Titus Livius autem non semel usus est genetivo casu ad struendas sententias non multum istis, quas monstrasti, dissimiles (sed nihilominus dissimiles!). Ut puta:

"consuli tum Caeso Fabius, prioris anni consul (...)"
"L. Lucretius, consul anni prioris, recenti gloria nitens (...)"
"Q. Fabius, insequentis anni consul, bellum ad Sutrium excepit (...)"

Inde fortassis mendum, vel saltem rarior usus ac parum probatus.

So, if I've understood the gist of that, the idea is "consul of the year 70", etc.? Thanks.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

---Which is what Terry was saying, and Ybytyruna supplied the genitive examples from Livius; thank you both!

I did not know before that consul was a one-year office; but, with that in mind, consul "of the year" makes good sense.

 

[Terry S.]

To the best of my limited knowledge, there were two consuls, who shared office for one year.

 

[Terry S.]

List of Roman consuls - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org