Relative pn rule (rewritten)

[john abshire]

A Rule I found concerning relative pronouns (paraphrased):
A relative pn generally agrees in number and gender with the predicate noun in it’s own clause verses it’s antecedent.
1- I assume that this statement must be referring to relative clauses that contain an “identity verb”, (esse), and which have predicate nominatives vs direct objects?
The sentence below is the example given.

Mare etiam quem Neptunam esse dicebas…..
The sea too which you said was Neptune….

therefore when the rule states “predicate noun”, that is synonymous with predicate nominative?

So,
“The sea which destroyed the city……”
“Which” would agree with sea, not city?
But,
“The sea which he called (which is) home…”
“Which” would agree with home?

 

[Pacifica]

“The sea which destroyed the city……”
“Which” would agree with sea, not city?

Yes.

“The sea which he called (which is) home…”
“Which” would agree with home?

Often, yes. (It isn't impossible for the relative pronoun to agree with the antecedent even in such cases, but it's often attracted into the gender and number of the predicate noun).

therefore when the rule states “predicate noun”, that is synonymous with predicate nominative?

Not quite. It includes predicate nominatives, of course, but also predicate accusatives, as in the second example above and in this one:

Mare etiam quem Neptunum esse dicebas…..
The sea too which you said was Neptune….

 

[john abshire]

Yes.

Often, yes. (It isn't impossible for the relative pronoun to agree with the antecedent even in such cases, but it's often attracted into the gender and number of the predicate noun).

Not quite. It includes predicate nominatives, of course, but also predicate accusatives, as in the second example above and in this one:

I’m confused about predicate nominatives and accusatives.
The sea which he called (which is) home…..
if you take the second option;
The sea which is home……; The relative clause links home to sea, in fact home “renames” sea, similar to “the sea is home.” In this last sentence, isn’t home a predicate nominative? If so, why isn’t home a predicate nominative in “the sea, which is home….” ?

 

[Pacifica]

"Home" is a predicate nominative in "the sea, which is home" and a predicate accusative in "the sea, which he called home". The difference is as follows:

In "the sea, which is home", "which" is the subject of "is". Therefore, "which" would be nominative in Latin, and the predicate noun "home" that refers to it would be nominative too.

In "the sea, which he called home", "which" is the direct object of "called", so it would be accusative in Latin, and the predicate noun "home" that refers to it would follow suit.

 

[Pacifica]

but also predicate accusatives, as in the second example above

Sorry, I was unclear here: by "the second example" I meant "the sea which he called home" as opposed to the earlier one "the sea which destroyed the city". I didn't take the parenthesis into account.

 

[john abshire]

"Home" is a predicate nominative in "the sea, which is home" and a predicate accusative in "the sea, which he called home". The difference is as follows:

In "the sea, which is home", "which" is the subject of "is". Therefore, "which" would be nominative in Latin, and the predicate noun "home" that refers to it would be nominative too.

In "the sea, which he called home", "which" is the direct object of "called", so it would be accusative in Latin, and the predicate noun "home" that refers to it would follow suit.

The sea, which he called home.
How (why) is “which” the DO of “called”?
Doesn’t “home” rename “which” ? In the same way as in the sentence “the sea, which is home.”?

 

[Dantius]

"Home" does rename "which"; but that is true of both predicate accusative and predicate nominatives. Whether "which" is a subject or direct object has nothing to do with whether "home" renames it. The difference between "The sea, which he called home" and "The sea, which is home" is that "which" is the object in the first one (and "he" is the subject), whereas "which" is the subject in the second one. And thus "home" in Latin would be, respectively, a predicate accusative in the first and a predicate nominative in the second sentence.

To see the difference, it might be helpful to consider sentences with "who/whom" or "he/him." With these words, English indicates the difference between subject and direct object. "The boy, who is John" vs. "The boy, whom (DO) I call John." "He is John" vs. "I call him (DO) John."

 

[Pacifica]

How (why) is “which” the DO of “called”?

Who called? "He" did. So "he" is the subject. What did he call? The sea. That becomes more obvious if you reword the idea as the simple sentence "He called the sea home". The phrase "the sea" itself doesn't appear in the relative clause "which he called home"; but "which" stands for "the sea", so "which" is the object.

 

[john abshire]

Who called? "He" did. So "he" is the subject. What did he call? The sea. That becomes more obvious if you reword the idea as the simple sentence "He called the sea home". The phrase "the sea" itself doesn't appear in the relative clause "which he called home"; but "which" stands for "the sea", so "which" is the object.

1-“He called the sea home.”
2-“He gave the boy a book.”
3-“he gave the sea the name home.”

In sentence 1, “he” is the subject, “sea” is the object, home is ?
In sentence 2, “he” is the subject, “boy” is the indirect object, book is the direct object.
In sentence 3, “he” is the subject, sea is the indirect object, “name” is the direct object, “home” is ?

Sentences 2 and 3 rewritten;
2- he gave a book to the boy.
3- he gave a name to the sea, which was home.
Book and name are direct objects in 2 and 3. Boy and sea are indirect objects. In 3, “which” is a relative pronoun that represents name, so “which” is an object?
If so, what is “home”?

 

[Pacifica]

In sentence 1, “he” is the subject, “sea” is the object

Yes.

home is ?

A predicate accusative. Well, that's what it would be called if the sentence were in Latin. I don't know if you can say "accusative" when talking about English where there are no case endings. But in any case it's some kind of predicative complement.

In sentence 2, “he” is the subject, “boy” is the indirect object, book is the direct object.

Yes.

In sentence 3, “he” is the subject, sea is the indirect object, “name” is the direct object

Yes.

“home” is ?

An apposition.

3- he gave a name to the sea, which was home.

“which” is an object?

No, "which" is the subject of "was".

what is “home”?

A predicative complement—a predicate nominative from a Latin point of view.

 

[john abshire]

Yes.
A predicate accusative. Well, that's what it would be called if the sentence were in Latin. I don't know if you can say "accusative" when talking about English where there are no case endings. But in any case it's some kind of predicative complement.

Yes.

Yes.

An apposition.


No, "which" is the subject of "was".

A predicative complement—a predicate nominative from a Latin point of view.

There is a lot to unpack. Let’s start with 1.
“He called the sea home.”
He is the subject, sea is the direct object, home is the predicate accusative (or some kind of predicate compliment in English, but in Latin it’s a predicate accusative). So, in Latin,
Mare domum vocavit.
?
Edit: Marem changed to Mare. Mare is neuter (I learned).

 

[MIB]

mare is neuter, so its form would be "mare"

 

[john abshire]

An apposition.

“He gave the sea the name home.”
And “home” is an apposition?
I will look that up and save us both some time, but my first inclination is that “home” in the sentence could be in the genitive and it would make complete sense. That is; “he gave the sea the name OF home. Is this why “home” is not a predicate accusative or complement?
“He gave the name of home to the sea.”
If the sentence were written in this way, is name the DO, home (now) genitive, sea IO?

 

[Pacifica]

my first inclination is that “home” in the sentence could be in the genitive and it would make complete sense.

Absolutely! In fact, it would be more likely to be genitive in Latin than to agree in the accusative with nomen.

(But in the English sentence as you first worded it, "He gave the sea the name home", "home" is indeed an apposition.)

home (now) genitive, sea IO?

It isn't an indirect object (it isn't dative); it's a genitive modifying "name".

 

[Pacifica]

(it isn't dative)

(It could be so in Latin if you translated the sentence less literally... but let's not go off into yet another direction; we're already all over the place...)

 

[Dantius]

It isn't an indirect object (it isn't dative); it's a genitive modifying "name".

In the message you quoted, John wasn't asking if "home" was an indirect object, but rather if "sea" was the IO, which it certainly would be in "He gave (to) the sea the name (of) home"

 

[Pacifica]

Sorry, I misread it as "home (now genitive), IO".

 

[john abshire]

Sorry, I misread it as "home (now genitive), IO".

“He gave the name home to the sea.”
Nomen domum mari davit.
I have not double checked my Latin, but assuming that I am close, my main question is on the case of domus. That is, am I correct in assigning the accusative to both nomen and domus, since they are appositions?

 

[john abshire]

Review of apposition(s).
He gave the name home to the sea.
Nomen domUM mari dat.
Or/
Nomen domUS mari dat.
He gave the name (of) home to the sea.
?

My father the leader is carrying a sword.
Pater dux gladium portat.
?