vicinus

[maestissimus]

This is a sentence from Scribblers, Sculptors, and Scribes:

1. Vicinum habere malum magnum est malum. (Plautus Merc. 764: vicinus,-i, m., neighbor; "vicinity." The entire infin. phrase vicinum habere malum is subj. of est, and magnum malum is PRED. NOM.)

Shouldn't vicinum be normative if it's the subject?

 

[Clemens]

Vīcīnum is not the subject here, but the direct object of habēre. Yes, the entire phrase vīcīnum habēre malum (to have a bad neighbor) is the subject of est, but within that phrase, vīcīnum is the DO of the infinitive.

 

[Pacifica]

but within that phrase, vīcīnum is the DO of the infinitive.

Correct. And even if it were the subject of the infinitive, it would still be accusative (we would have an accusative-and-infinitive clause). It would be nominative if it were the subject of est; i.e. if we were saying "a bad neighbor is..."

 

[maestissimus]

So, the infinitive is the subject and it takes the accusative case, therefore there's no normative case?

 

[Pacifica]

So, the infinitive is the subject

The whole infinitive phrase vicinum habere malum is the subject.

therefore there's no normative case?

There's no normative case either here or anywhere else in grammar, as far as I know. You mean nominative.

Magnum malum is nominative, being a predicate complement to the verb est.

The infinitive phrase vicinum habere malum basically fills the role of a nominative noun (being the subject of the sentence). You can't really say it's nominative, but it has a nominative function.

 

[Clemens]

The implication (to me) is that the infinitive phrase is nominative but unmarked for case (you can't mark case on whole phrases in Latin), because the predicate complement agrees with it.

 

[maestissimus]

Magnum malum is nominative, being a predicate complement to the verb est.

But magnum malum is in the accusitive case, right? It has to agree with the subject so it’s accusative?

 

[Clemens]

It's (neuter) nominative, which resembles an accusative.

 

[maestissimus]

It's (neuter) nominative, which resembles an accusative.

Vicinus,-i is masculine.

 

[Pacifica]

First, malum here is used as a noun (meaning a bad thing, an evil, a misfortune) rather than as a simple adjective. So even if vicinus were the subject and you were saying "a bad neighbor is a great evil", malum would still be neuter.

Secondly, vicinus isn't the subject. The infinitive phrase vicinum habere malum is. An infinitive phrase is always neuter. So even if malum were being used as an adjective here, it would be neuter.

 

[Pacifica]

First, malum here is used as a noun (meaning a bad thing, an evil, a misfortune) rather than as a simple adjective. So even if vicinus were the subject and you were saying "a bad neighbor is a great evil", malum would still be neuter.

Secondly, vicinus isn't the subject. The infinitive phrase vicinum habere malum is. An infinitive phrase is always neuter. So even if malum were being used as an adjective here, it would be neuter.

I realize that post may have been confusing. When I said that malum is being used as a noun, I meant the second malum (in magnum malum). The first malum (in vicinum malum) is simply an adjective.

 

[Clemens]

In that case it’s wrong of me to say it agrees with anything, but if we had an adjective here, it would be neuter, yes?

 

[Pacifica]

Yes, even if the second malum were a simple adjective, it would be neuter, because it modifies an infinitive clause, and an infinitive clause is always neuter.