Caesar, De Bello Gallico, I, 30.

[ovidia nemausa]

Hello dear people in the forum,
I have a question with the following sentence:

Caesar De Bello Gallico, I, 30:
Bello Helvetiorum confecto totius fere Galliae legati, principes civitatum, ad Caesarem gratulatum convenerunt:
intellegere sese, tametsi pro veteribus Helvetiorum iniuriis populi Romani ab his poenas bello repetisset,
tamen eam rem non minus ex usu Galliae quam populi Romani accidisse,...

My question is: it seems that "populi romani" is genivite plural? And if so, why? Wouldn't a dative singular be more natural and to be expected?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Ovidia.

 

[Pacifica]

it seems that "populi romani" is genivite plural?

It's genitive singular.

And if so, why? Wouldn't a dative singular be more natural and to be expected?

A dative would be unusual. Datives don't often modify nouns.

 

[ovidia nemausa]

Thanks for the quick reply.
Sorry, I miswrote "genitive plural" for 'populi romani'; obviously it's genitive singular.

But my question really is: the injuries have been done by the helvetians to the roman people,
that's why it would seem to me more natural to be in dative singular.
'Helvetiorum' is already in genitive, correct? ('injuries of the helvetians'),
so another genitive ('populi romani') sounds strange to me ("injuries of the helvetians of the roman people" ??)

Thanks for any further clarification.
Ovidia.

 

[Pacifica]

The two genitives together are arguably a bit confusing. If I dared to criticize Caesar's writing, I might say he should rather have written something like pro veteribus Helvetiorum iniuriis populo Romano illatis (injuries inflicted on the Roman people). But I guess it was clear enough from the context what he meant so he didn't need to bother using more words than he did.

As you can see in my proposed alternative wording, the dative can be used but it needs some verbal component (like the participle illatis) to go with. To have the dative directly modify the noun iniuriis would be unusual. That's just not how Latin works. It's usual for nouns to be modified by genitives, not datives (with a few exceptions).

 

[Godmy]

If I dared to criticize Caesar's writing

.... but I guess we could learn something here about types of genetives and potentially even their order / the word order from a Roman...

I don't know if semantical terms like "genitive of agent*" or "genitive of recipient" are a thing, but it almost seems as if the agent comes first, recipient after it. But then, it's just one piece of data/example...

*I mean, just like we have semantical terms of the sort subjective genitive, or objective genitive; I certainly don't mean a syntactical term!

 

[Pacifica]

subjective genitive, or objective genitive

Those are the usual terms. In this case, Helvetiorum is a subjective genitive and populi Romani an objective genitive.

But then, it's just one piece of data/example...

Yes, I don't think we can extrapolate a general rule about word order from this one sentence.

 

[Godmy]

Those are the usual terms. In this case, Helvetiorum is a subjective genitive and populi Romani an objective genitive.

I see, I was warry to use that, since I often see it used with nouns that can easily convert to a verb (amor* <> amo ... e.g., where subjects/objects are straightofrward), but I guess, semantically speaking, you're right and I'm merely 'multiplying the entities' by introducing a new terminology... Then 'subject' (of a sort) going first would not be unexpected in general in Latin.

*as in amor patriae

Well, yes, my point was that... it's of course arrogant* to say that one could write it better than Caesar (and you may be right, of course!), on the other hand, who knows what Caesar himself would say to that: "but this doesn't sound natural! That sounds like from some weird pretentious philosopher which I am not!" or something along the lines, we can never really know. But I also wanted to express that that line about "daring" really amused me! (in a good way!)

*but don't take that as a rebuke, I think it was Okay you said that! Let us be arrogant a bit!

 

[Dumnorix]

Regarding Helvetiorum iniuriis populi Romani, for whatever it's worth, it's rare that Caesar uses both a subjective genitive and objective genitive with the same accompanying noun. It is the only example that I know of in The Gallic War. And perhaps an objective genitive here, rather than a longer phrase, just suits his concise style?

 

[Pacifica]

Maybe. And, as I conjectured above:

I guess it was clear enough from the context what he meant so he didn't need to bother using more words than he did.

 

[Matthaeus]

What was clear to them isn't necessarily so to us, hence the entire problem...

 

[Dantius]

I believe Allen and Greenough cites an example from Cicero of "animi multarum rerum percursio" for a phrase with both a subjective and objective genitive. More common is either a participial phrase as Pacifica suggested, or something like "Helvetiorum erga populum Romanum iniuriis".

 

[Matthaeus]

Hmm for some reason that phrase is clearly understood right off the bat. Well, at least to me...