![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Actually, this one could be separated out into several different genitives. I found a website (http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/genitive.html) which had Definition and Material together, which I also realized would include the Genitive of Specification. For my own students I am combining them but will include here what the grammarians have about these. But first, I want to say that CLC does NOT mention any of these, not even Genitive of Material, which I think is a mistake because the very first instance of a genitive not piggybacking on a prepositional phrase is with a Genitive of Material (cumulum lapidum fulgentium) and it is in Stage 17 (where genitives are introduced).
So first, let’s see what the Grammarians say:
Genitives, Bennett’s new Latin Grammar
195. With Nouns the Genitive is the case which defines the meaning of the limited noun more closely. This relation is generally indicated in English by the preposition of. There are the following varieties of the Genitive with Nouns:--
197. Genitive of Material – talentum aurī, a talent of gold; acervus frūmentī, a pile of grain
Genitives Gildersleeve and Lodge, p230ff
360. The Genitive Case is the Case of the Complement, and is akin to the Adjective, with which it is often parallel. It is the substantive form of the Specific Characteristic.
Appositive Genitive, or Genitive of Specification.
361.The Genitive is sometimes used to specify the contents of generic words instead of Apposition in the same case; there are two varieties:
1. Appositional Genitive. – Genitive after such words as, vōx, expression; nōmen, name, noun; verbum word, verb; rēs thing, etc.
nōmen amīcītiae, the name friendship
2. Epexegetical Genitive – Genitive after such words as genus, class, vitium, vice, culpa, fault.
virtūtēs continentiae, gravitātis, iūstitiae, fideī, the virtues of self-control, earnestness, justice, honour
Notes:
1. The former variety is very rare in Cicero, the latter much more common. A special variety is the use of the Gen. after such words as urbs, oppidum, flūmen, etc. This is not found in Plautus and Terrence, occurs perhaps but once in Cicero, and seems to be confined to a few cases in poetry and later prose. Often personification is at work; thus, in fōns Timāvī, Timāvus is a river god, and fōns is not equal to Timāvus.
2. Examples like arbor abietis, fir-tree, arbor fīcī, fig-tree, etc, occur only here and there
3. Colloquial, and probably belonging here are: scelus virī, a scoundrel of a man; flāgitium hominis, a scamp of a fellow, and the like. quaedam pēstēs hominum, certain pestilent fellows.
Genitives, Hale & Buck p 180ff
339. Possession or Connection may be expressed by a Genitive attached to a Noun.
Explanatory Genitive
341. The Genitive may be attached to a Noun to define or explain its meaning.
hoc poētae nōmen, this name of “poet”; Troiae urbem, the city of Troy
Genitive of Material or Composition
349. Material or Composition may be expressed by a Genitive attached to a Noun.
obtortī circulus aurī, a chain of twisted gold; ancillārum gregēs, crowds (composed) of maidservants
***
The following are the sentences that I think demonstrate what I am calling the Genitive of Definition/Material. I am leaving in the notes I made to myself, which are highlighted.
Piggybacking on Prepositional Phrases (as they were introduced in stage 17).
· 17 tum post cumulum gemmārum sē cēlāvit.
· 19 post multitūdinem puellārum tubicinēs et puerī prōcēdēbant.
· 19 post turbam puerōrum tubicinumque vēnit dea ipsa.
· 19 in hāc multitūdine servōrum erant nōnnūllī Aethiopes, quī hastās in manibus tenēbant.
· 20 nihil dē arte nāvigandī sciunt.
· 22 per silentium noctis thermās intrant Bulbus et Gutta.
· 29 forum ab ingentī multitūdine cīvium cotīdiē complētur.
· 39 in aulā Imperātōris, duo puerī in studiīs litterārum sunt occupātī.
Not Following a Prepositional Phrase (CLC assuming you have seen enough instances and can recognize them without the additional cue.)
· 17 in nīdō mōnstrī mercātor cumulum lapidum fulgentium cōnspexit.
*First instance without a prepositional phrase!
*first with a present participle?
· 19 puellae corōnās rosārum gerunt.
· 19 turba Alexandrīnōrum tōtam viam complet.
· 19 statim multitūdō spectātōrum clāmōrem sustulit.
· 19 corōna rosārum dē mālō nāvis pendēbat.
· 20 rediit, ubi artem medicīnae exercēbat.
· 20 Petrō artem medicīnae in urbe diū exercuerat.
· 21 pōculum vīnī fert.
· 21 in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit.
*2nd present participle used in the gen plural; more challenging because of the adverb.
· 21 in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit.
*3rd present participle used in the gen plural; more challenging because of the accusative object. Both of these (see above) are emphasizing the verbal aspects of the participle.
· 22 multī mīlitēs vulnera fingunt, quod perīcula bellī vītāre volunt.
· 22 quanta est summa illōrum? (centum, centum et quīnquāgintā, trīgintā, sexāgintā)
*or is this really just Possession? The sum belonging to these numbers?
NB: meaning of summa is different here from gen of description, etc!
· 22 volō tē persōnam Vilbiae agere.
· 23 rēgem prīncipēsque manus armātōrum custōdiēbat.
· 23 “domine,” inquit, “pōculum aquae sacrae tibi offerō.”
· 26 Agricola tamen hīs verbīs diffīsus, Salvium dīligentius rogāvit quae indicia sēditiōnis vīdisset.
· 27 iubē Aulum amphoram vīnī ferre, Pūblicum lucernam āleāsque.
· 27 subitō manum hominum per tenebrās cōnspexit.
· 27 amphoram vīnī ē manibus Aulī ēripuit et vīnum in tunicam fūdit.
· 27 statim manus mīlitum, ā Valeriō ducta, ad horrea contendit.
· 29 spectātōrum tanta erat multitūdō ut eī quī tardius advēnērunt nūllum locum prope arcum invenīre possent.
*gen first
· 29 avium cursus ab auguribus dīligenter notābātur.
*gen first
· 29 Glitus, magister fabrōrum, Haterium lēnīre temptābat.
· 30 ibi sedēbat ōtiōsus Glitus magister fabrōrum.
*not what he’s made of but it does define his job
· 30 tōta ārea strepitū labōrantium plēna erat.
*present participle, 2nd on its own?
· 31 ubīque sonitus labōrantium audiēbātur.
*present participle, 3rd on its own?
· 32 hominēs eiusmodī cīvibus urbānīs nōn placent.
· 32 “ēn Rōmānī, dominī orbis terrārum, ventris Venerisque servī!”
*note chiasmus
· 32 “ēn Rōmānī, dominī orbis terrārum, ventris Venerisque servī!”
*note chiasmus
· 33 mox Dominus noster, rēx glōriae, ad nōs reveniet; ē caelō dēscendet cum sonitū tubārum, magnō numerō angelōrum comitante.
· 34 tandem audīvit Paris strepitum cēterōrum mīlitum domum irrumpentium.
* with present participle and object of participle
· 34 …puerī puellaeque deōrum effigiēs corōnīs flōrum ōrnābunt;
*gen first
· 34 …puerī puellaeque deōrum effigiēs corōnīs flōrum ōrnābunt;
*kind of chiasmus… certainly framing in a way
· 34 Myropnous ubi strepitum pulsantium audīvit pyram incendit.
*present participle
· 34 tum manibus ad caelum sublātīs nōmen Salviī dētestātus est.
· 34 ātrium magnificē ōrnātum erat: ubīque lūcēbant lucernae, corōnae rosārum dē omnib*first time present participle used in the singular us columnīs pendēbant.
· 34 amphoram oleī ē culīnā portāvit quā flammās augēret.
· 36 nōmine Diaulus sum. artem medicīnae nūper exercēbam….
· 36 dīcis amōre tuī bellās ardēre puellās / quī faciem sub aquā, Sexte, natantis habēs.
*present participle, only one used as a substantive in the singular
· 37 initiō huius aestātis, exercitus noster ad ultimās partēs Britanniae pervēnit.
· 38 diēs nūptiārum adest.
· 38 ō mea fīlia, tibi haud lacrimandum est; diē nūptiārum nōn decet lacrimāre.
· 38 chorus musicōrum carmen nūptiāle cantāre incipit.
· 40 septimō annō Domitiānī prīcipātus, C. Salvius Līberālis, quī priōre annō fuerat cōnsul, ab Acīliō Glabriōne falsī accūsātus est.
*double genitive
· 40 eīs magnō auxiliō erat L. Mārcius Memor, haruspex et Salviī cliēns, quī, socius quondam scelerum Salviī, nunc ad eum prōdendum adductus est, spē praemiī vel metū poenārum.
*separated from governing noun (?) (quondam is post-positive?) Separation not used until after a few instances of being used predicatively.
· 40 interim, ut sollicitūdinem dissimulāret et speciem amīcitiae praebēret, Salvium dōnīs honōrāvit, ad cēnam invītāvit, cōmiter excēpit.
· 40 fāma praetereā vagābātur reliquiās corporum in thermīs Aquārum Sūlis repertās esse, dēfīxiōnēs quoque nōmine Cogidubnī īnscrīptās.
· 40 fāma praetereā vagābātur reliquiās corporum in thermīs Aquārum Sūlis repertās esse, dēfīxiōnēs quoque nōmine Cogidubnī īnscrīptās.
· 40 prīmō diē cognitiōnis Glabriō crīmina levia et inānia exposuit.
· 40 postrīdiē Ursus Serviānus, quī cognitiōnī praefuerat, sententiam prōnūntiāvit: nōmen Salviī Fāstīs ēradendum esse;…
· 40 aliī exīstimābant Domitiānī īram magis timendam esse quam minās accūsantium;…
*present participle
· 40 postulāvit tabulās testāmentī.
Genitives nested inside prepositional phrases or inside noun/adjective pairs.
· 29 illā nocte Eleazārus, dē rērum statū dēspērāns, Iūdaeīs cōnsilium dīrum prōposuit.
· 30 apud Haterium tamen nūllae grātulantium vōcēs audītae sunt.
*present participle, 1st on its own?
· 32 …sed Euphrosynē ab eiusmodī actīs abhorruit.
· 40 ingēns senātōrum multitūdō in cūriā convēnerat, ubi Gāius Salvius Līberālis accūsābātur.
· 40 diē dictā, magnā senātōrum multitūdō ad causam audiendam in cūriā convēnit.
· 40 eōdem diē mīrum fideī exemplum oculīs populī Rōmānī obiectum est.
Genitives used predicatively? (Separated from the noun it modifies by the verb? I am uncertain what the grammarians mean by “predicatively” and I found the examples unhelpful.)
· 28 Belimice, tē rēgem creō mortuōrum.
· 37 Domitiānus autem nūllum signum dedit neque odiī neque gaudiī neque invidiae.
· 39 ipse tridente suō terram percussit, at ill / intremuit mōtūque viās patefēcit aquārum. (Ovid)
· 40 subitō extrā cūriam īnfestae vōcēs sunt audītae clāmantium sē ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse sī poenam scelerum effūgisset.
*present participle used predicatively modifying vōcēs and governing an indirect statement.
The first set above are those that are piggybacking on prepositional phrases to add that additional visual cue that we indeed have genitives at hand. There is only one example in Stage 17, post cumulum gemmārum. There is only one from the 2nd set, those without the visual cue of the prepositional phrase, cumulum lapidum fulgentium. Both of these come from the story mercātor Arabs. This latter example I find curious. To begin with, it is the first example of a genitive occurring without a prepositional phrase. There’s also one in Stage 18, the very last sentence in the chapter (nunc Clēmēns est prīnceps tabernāriōrum). We don’t begin to see genitives without a prepositional phrase regularly until Stage 19. The second curious thing about this example is that it is the first time time we see a genitive with a present participle, fulgentium, which we don’t see again until Stage 21 (more on that in a moment). In fact, we don’t even get present participles until Stage 20. Then again, CLC often sneaks in previews of grammar to come. I’m betting, though, that this one hardly gets noticed. It is glossed thus we don’t need the visual cue to help students understand that this is a genitive and most students (or teachers) never reread old stories to notice those details.
In Stage 19 we get five examples of the Genitive of Definition/Material with both words for “crowd”—post multitūdinem puellārum, post turbam puerōrum tubicinumque, in hāc multitūdine servōrum, turba Alexandrīnōrum, multitūdō spectātōrum. Students and teachers never question theses phrases being genitives because “of” flows so naturally in the English, but it’s not like these crowds belong to the girls, the boys, the trumpeters, the slaves, the Alexandrians, or even the spectators. However, they are made up of these people; the crowd is defined by what it is made of.
I’m making a point about “crowds” because it is with multitūdō that CLC throws students a curve ball in Stage 21 with this sentence: in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit. This is the first time we see present participles in the genitive plural once we have formally been introduced to present participles. And in fact in this one sentence we have two of them, and each is demonstrating that half verb/half adjective quality of the participle: aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium has an adverb modifying the participle, nested in the middle of the phrase; fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium has a direct object governed by vituperantium—and even it has its own participle, absentem. (Ok, and I love the Memorem absentem line because of the line in Book 4 of the Aeneid: illum absens absentem auditque videtque.) It’s definitely a loaded sentence. I would like to think that if we as teachers make a big deal of having “crowds OF people” already, this more extended version with a present participle is doable. And if students think that this sentence is overly long and overwhelming, we can remind them that this is exactly the way Cephalus is supposed to feel here—overwhelmed by what he has been ordered to deal with, and certainly people shouting and cursing would be upsetting for him.
The present participles used in the genitive, especially those on their own acting as substantitives with the meaning “of those verbing,” have always interested me. It’s the sort of thing that trips up my students and I have wondered whether there was a better approach to teaching them. If we have discussed with students, whether formally or informally, about Genitive of Definition/Material, then I think these genitives can be easier to recognize. Consider the first example from Stage 30, apud Haterium tamen nūllae grātulantium vōcēs audītae sunt, which has the genitive all by itself nicely nested between the adjective and noun. We can assume that those missing voices of those congratulating him would be of clients, since in the previous paragraph in the story Salvius is being congratulated by clients. And in fact we discover in the next sentence that Haterius hasn’t been allowing clients nor friends into his house. The next two genitives on their own are tōta ārea strepitū labōrantium plēna erat (later in Stage 30), which is followed fairly closely in Stage 31 with ubīque sonitus labōrantium audiēbātur. If we compared these to the ones in in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit, we could discuss with students that it was necessary to specify that it was the crowd of sick people shouting as opposed to the crowd of craftsmen cursing. But when there is nothing to specify in that regard, one doesn’t need to include virōrum or hominum. There are a few more instances of the present participle in the genitive without a noun acting as a substantive: strepitum pulsantium (34), faciem…natantis (36, Martial; the only singular), and minās accūsantium (40). Although they are nowhere called “substantives” in the Language Information section, they are remarked upon under Uses of the Participle. (Adjectives used as substantives are not remarked upon whatsoever that I can find, which is disappointing.)
In Stage 22, where we have the difference between Genitive of Possession, Partitive Genitive, and Genitive of Description explained, we also have this one time (at least through Stage 40) occurrence of summa = sum, total. I think it is worth taking a diversion to discuss with students that we see forms of summus in several different constructions in Latin and the translation does vary depending upon context:
· 22 quanta est summa illōrum?
How great is the sum of those [figures]?
(with a Genitive of Definition/Material or perhaps Possession)
· 22 prope virum SUMMAE VIRTŪTIS stō.
I am standing near a man of the highest/greatest courage.
(in a Genitive of Description)
· 15 intereā Dumnorix, quī summā cum cūrā nāvigābat, circum mētam nāvem dīrēxit.
Meanwhile Dumnorix, who was sailing with the highest/greatest care, steered his boat around the turning point.
(in an Ablative of Manner)
· 29 …ultimae marmoris massae ad summum arcum tolluntur.
…the last blocks of marble are being raised to the top of the arch.
(simple adjective—not sure how better to explain)
In Stage 29 we start seeing Genitives appearing before the noun they modify. The first example is ūnā cum eīs in carcere erant quīnque līberī, QUŌRUM Simōn nātū maximus sōlācium mātrī et aviae fere temptābat, where we are not surprised to find the relative pronoun, which naturally comes first in a relative clause, being in a case that is not normally first in a sentence. The next two examples having a genitive come first are these, and both are Genitive of Definition/Material:
· 29 spectātōrum tanta erat multitūdō ut eī quī tardius advēnērunt nūllum locum prope arcum invenīre possent.
· 29 avium cursus ab auguribus dīligenter notābātur.
Of these two, the very first one harkens back to “crowd” (see above). I do not know whether it is significant, but the first instance of the genitive occurring after the verb and separated from the noun it modifies appears in Stage 28 (Belimice, tē rēgem creō mortuōrum), perhaps to get us used to the genitive being in different places depending on context or emphasis. Placement can also be determined because the genitive doing more than just modifying the noun, such as this substantive present participle:
· 40 subitō extrā cūriam īnfestae vōcēs sunt audītae clāmantium sē ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse sī poenam scelerum effūgisset.
Not only does it come after the verb, it also governs the indirect statement, sē ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse, which follows it. This is something I really like about the progression or evolution of constructions in CLC: once you get a handle on the construction, it gets combined with other constructions to make that densely packed periodic Latin that we love (or should love). After all, this sentence has a perfect passive verb with the participle coming after sunt and not before it, a present participle in the genitive plural acting as a substantive which in turn is governing an indirect statement which also contains a condition!
So, let me say that I think that the Genitive of Definition/Material is one of the types of genitives which CLC should mention. Clearly we get by without it because if you know that the genitive means “of” you can easily translate cumulus gemmārum as “a pile of gems” or multitūdō spectatōrum as “a crowd of spectators” etc. But I think it would be a much easier shift in concept when we get to strepitus pulsantium, “the noise of those pounding (on the door)” if we already had this concept in our mind of the genitive defining that pile or that crowd or that noise by explaining what material the pile, the crowd, or the noise is made of. We are, indeed, specifying what the pile consists of, what kind of crowd it is, and even what the noise is from.
If you use the About the Language with students, you may note that in the one in Stage 17 provides this information:
A. Study the following sentences:
· ad portum Alexandrīae mox pervēnimus.
We soon arrived at the harbor of Alexandria.
· in vīllā Barbillī erant multī servī.
In the house of Barbillus were many slaves.
· mīlitēs Rōmānī per viās urbis incēdēbant.
Roman soldiers were marching through the streets of the city.
[A variation of what is really seen in the model sentences:
multī mīlitēs per viās urbis incēdunt.]
· in multitūdine Aegyptiōrum erat senex.
In the crowd of Egyptians was an old man.
· agmen mīlitum per urbem incēdit.
A column of soldiers is marching through the city.
[I cannot find any use of agmen with a genitive in CLC, not that anything is wrong with this sentence, and mīlitum used in the genitive this way only occurs 3 times (in 24, 27, & 34)].
The words in the boldface are in the genitive case.
I do take issue with the last example because nothing like it is seen in this stage and I believe all examples in the About the Language section should be taken straight from the stories. But I digress. In the About the Language II: More About the Genitive in Stage 22, you will find:
A. In Unit 2 you met examples of the genitive case like these:
· marītus Galatēae erat Aristō.
Galatea’s husband was Aristo.
[No, this sentence was not used.]
· prō templō Caesaris stat āra.
In front of the temple of Caesar stands an altar.
[Actually it was prō templō Caesaris erat āra.]
These are obvious examples of Genitive of Possession. Although not called such here (which I have no issue with), the Language Information section does have Possession identified as a use of the genitive case. The About the Language section in Stage 22 then continues on with examples of Partitive Genitive/Genitive of Quanitity, and Genitive of Description. What is notably absent now are the examples of Genitive of Definition/Material. It’s not in the examples, it’s not mentioned or shown subsumed in another category in the Language Information section. And yet it was important enough to include in the Stage 17 About the Language. Why does it disappear? Why not get students who want to understand the workings of language with that tiny bit of extra information to think on—that genitives can be used to define and specify?
But no matter. Teachers should always remember that textbooks are merely tools to use and that they as teachers are in charge of what is taught. I find CLC to be a fantastic tool which I learn more and more from each year, and I have been teaching from it for over 15 years now. We teachers can use our own ingenuity to reinforce what we think is important.
Teachers could have great fun orally engaging students by changing up some of these genitives in an effort to point out that these are Definition/Material when encountering pōculum vīnī (estne pōculum aquae? lactis? CocaColae?) or perīcula bellī (suntne perīcula pacis? scholae? lūdōrum? dormiendī? autoraedam agendī?). Or if you feel as if you don’t have enough time for such side diversions when reading a story with students, perhaps you could compose a humorous paired reading activity for a “musical pairs” warm-up/ice-breaker for the beginning of class.
Another concern of mine is that not properly addressing the Genitive of Definition/Material could lead to problems later on. I found a page on the internet (which I won’t cite; I am not trying to ridicule the teacher) that had this:
Specification: The purpose of this genitive is to specify or narrow down the meaning of another word. This is also what I like to call the cop-out genitive. If you don't know how to parse the genitive, put this and you just might get it right.
I found this terribly disappointing but not surprising because we all get in a rut of teaching what we feel we need to teach (what’s in the textbook) and not thinking about the rest. I have been guilty of this laziness—or maybe not laziness but a type of blindess—from time to time, which is why I have been obsessing this summer over ablatives and genitives. The easiest (though time-consuming) part of this project has been going through and finding the sentences with genitives. The trickier part was labeling them. Sure, I understood what was going on in the sentence, but there’s a reason why those grammarians of past ages got so nitpicky. They wanted complete understanding of how things were functioning—that scientific dissection of language. We avoid it now because parsing a sentence doesn’t improve your fluency and turns into a totally tedious and mind-numbing drill. It is bad teaching if done constantly. And since the goal of CLC is not producing fluent language but being able to read fluently, the need to understand in order to produce is not necessary.
HOWEVER, piling up example after example after example as I have done, comparing and contrasting, and in the case of CLC, watching the evolution of usage, is truly enlightening. In my mind I feel like this sort of examination is like future doctors doing dissections for better understanding of human anatomy and all its variations. I love noticing something in CLC, and asking myself, “how long have they been sneaking this in?” or “how are they comparing and contrasting this concept?” and then hunting down the answer. But I digress.
Teachers jumping from CLC to AP need not feel like they suddenly have to teach all of these structures that we haven’t met before—because we HAVE met them all before. We don’t have to call it a Genitive of Specification or Material or Definition or Explanation; but we can discuss the concept. CLC’s strength is learning through reading and the repetitions in the readings. It’s just that sometimes we aren’t aware of those repetitions or evolutions. I’m hoping these little articles (which I suppose I should really be posting on my old blog which I stopped using a few years back) will raise awareness of how much “grammar” truly is in CLC in an organized way, even if it is never formally addressed in the texts.
So first, let’s see what the Grammarians say:
Genitives, Bennett’s new Latin Grammar
195. With Nouns the Genitive is the case which defines the meaning of the limited noun more closely. This relation is generally indicated in English by the preposition of. There are the following varieties of the Genitive with Nouns:--
197. Genitive of Material – talentum aurī, a talent of gold; acervus frūmentī, a pile of grain
Genitives Gildersleeve and Lodge, p230ff
360. The Genitive Case is the Case of the Complement, and is akin to the Adjective, with which it is often parallel. It is the substantive form of the Specific Characteristic.
Appositive Genitive, or Genitive of Specification.
361.The Genitive is sometimes used to specify the contents of generic words instead of Apposition in the same case; there are two varieties:
1. Appositional Genitive. – Genitive after such words as, vōx, expression; nōmen, name, noun; verbum word, verb; rēs thing, etc.
nōmen amīcītiae, the name friendship
2. Epexegetical Genitive – Genitive after such words as genus, class, vitium, vice, culpa, fault.
virtūtēs continentiae, gravitātis, iūstitiae, fideī, the virtues of self-control, earnestness, justice, honour
Notes:
1. The former variety is very rare in Cicero, the latter much more common. A special variety is the use of the Gen. after such words as urbs, oppidum, flūmen, etc. This is not found in Plautus and Terrence, occurs perhaps but once in Cicero, and seems to be confined to a few cases in poetry and later prose. Often personification is at work; thus, in fōns Timāvī, Timāvus is a river god, and fōns is not equal to Timāvus.
2. Examples like arbor abietis, fir-tree, arbor fīcī, fig-tree, etc, occur only here and there
3. Colloquial, and probably belonging here are: scelus virī, a scoundrel of a man; flāgitium hominis, a scamp of a fellow, and the like. quaedam pēstēs hominum, certain pestilent fellows.
Genitives, Hale & Buck p 180ff
339. Possession or Connection may be expressed by a Genitive attached to a Noun.
Explanatory Genitive
341. The Genitive may be attached to a Noun to define or explain its meaning.
hoc poētae nōmen, this name of “poet”; Troiae urbem, the city of Troy
Genitive of Material or Composition
349. Material or Composition may be expressed by a Genitive attached to a Noun.
obtortī circulus aurī, a chain of twisted gold; ancillārum gregēs, crowds (composed) of maidservants
***
The following are the sentences that I think demonstrate what I am calling the Genitive of Definition/Material. I am leaving in the notes I made to myself, which are highlighted.
Piggybacking on Prepositional Phrases (as they were introduced in stage 17).
· 17 tum post cumulum gemmārum sē cēlāvit.
· 19 post multitūdinem puellārum tubicinēs et puerī prōcēdēbant.
· 19 post turbam puerōrum tubicinumque vēnit dea ipsa.
· 19 in hāc multitūdine servōrum erant nōnnūllī Aethiopes, quī hastās in manibus tenēbant.
· 20 nihil dē arte nāvigandī sciunt.
· 22 per silentium noctis thermās intrant Bulbus et Gutta.
· 29 forum ab ingentī multitūdine cīvium cotīdiē complētur.
· 39 in aulā Imperātōris, duo puerī in studiīs litterārum sunt occupātī.
Not Following a Prepositional Phrase (CLC assuming you have seen enough instances and can recognize them without the additional cue.)
· 17 in nīdō mōnstrī mercātor cumulum lapidum fulgentium cōnspexit.
*First instance without a prepositional phrase!
*first with a present participle?
· 19 puellae corōnās rosārum gerunt.
· 19 turba Alexandrīnōrum tōtam viam complet.
· 19 statim multitūdō spectātōrum clāmōrem sustulit.
· 19 corōna rosārum dē mālō nāvis pendēbat.
· 20 rediit, ubi artem medicīnae exercēbat.
· 20 Petrō artem medicīnae in urbe diū exercuerat.
· 21 pōculum vīnī fert.
· 21 in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit.
*2nd present participle used in the gen plural; more challenging because of the adverb.
· 21 in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit.
*3rd present participle used in the gen plural; more challenging because of the accusative object. Both of these (see above) are emphasizing the verbal aspects of the participle.
· 22 multī mīlitēs vulnera fingunt, quod perīcula bellī vītāre volunt.
· 22 quanta est summa illōrum? (centum, centum et quīnquāgintā, trīgintā, sexāgintā)
*or is this really just Possession? The sum belonging to these numbers?
NB: meaning of summa is different here from gen of description, etc!
· 22 volō tē persōnam Vilbiae agere.
· 23 rēgem prīncipēsque manus armātōrum custōdiēbat.
· 23 “domine,” inquit, “pōculum aquae sacrae tibi offerō.”
· 26 Agricola tamen hīs verbīs diffīsus, Salvium dīligentius rogāvit quae indicia sēditiōnis vīdisset.
· 27 iubē Aulum amphoram vīnī ferre, Pūblicum lucernam āleāsque.
· 27 subitō manum hominum per tenebrās cōnspexit.
· 27 amphoram vīnī ē manibus Aulī ēripuit et vīnum in tunicam fūdit.
· 27 statim manus mīlitum, ā Valeriō ducta, ad horrea contendit.
· 29 spectātōrum tanta erat multitūdō ut eī quī tardius advēnērunt nūllum locum prope arcum invenīre possent.
*gen first
· 29 avium cursus ab auguribus dīligenter notābātur.
*gen first
· 29 Glitus, magister fabrōrum, Haterium lēnīre temptābat.
· 30 ibi sedēbat ōtiōsus Glitus magister fabrōrum.
*not what he’s made of but it does define his job
· 30 tōta ārea strepitū labōrantium plēna erat.
*present participle, 2nd on its own?
· 31 ubīque sonitus labōrantium audiēbātur.
*present participle, 3rd on its own?
· 32 hominēs eiusmodī cīvibus urbānīs nōn placent.
· 32 “ēn Rōmānī, dominī orbis terrārum, ventris Venerisque servī!”
*note chiasmus
· 32 “ēn Rōmānī, dominī orbis terrārum, ventris Venerisque servī!”
*note chiasmus
· 33 mox Dominus noster, rēx glōriae, ad nōs reveniet; ē caelō dēscendet cum sonitū tubārum, magnō numerō angelōrum comitante.
· 34 tandem audīvit Paris strepitum cēterōrum mīlitum domum irrumpentium.
* with present participle and object of participle
· 34 …puerī puellaeque deōrum effigiēs corōnīs flōrum ōrnābunt;
*gen first
· 34 …puerī puellaeque deōrum effigiēs corōnīs flōrum ōrnābunt;
*kind of chiasmus… certainly framing in a way
· 34 Myropnous ubi strepitum pulsantium audīvit pyram incendit.
*present participle
· 34 tum manibus ad caelum sublātīs nōmen Salviī dētestātus est.
· 34 ātrium magnificē ōrnātum erat: ubīque lūcēbant lucernae, corōnae rosārum dē omnib*first time present participle used in the singular us columnīs pendēbant.
· 34 amphoram oleī ē culīnā portāvit quā flammās augēret.
· 36 nōmine Diaulus sum. artem medicīnae nūper exercēbam….
· 36 dīcis amōre tuī bellās ardēre puellās / quī faciem sub aquā, Sexte, natantis habēs.
*present participle, only one used as a substantive in the singular
· 37 initiō huius aestātis, exercitus noster ad ultimās partēs Britanniae pervēnit.
· 38 diēs nūptiārum adest.
· 38 ō mea fīlia, tibi haud lacrimandum est; diē nūptiārum nōn decet lacrimāre.
· 38 chorus musicōrum carmen nūptiāle cantāre incipit.
· 40 septimō annō Domitiānī prīcipātus, C. Salvius Līberālis, quī priōre annō fuerat cōnsul, ab Acīliō Glabriōne falsī accūsātus est.
*double genitive
· 40 eīs magnō auxiliō erat L. Mārcius Memor, haruspex et Salviī cliēns, quī, socius quondam scelerum Salviī, nunc ad eum prōdendum adductus est, spē praemiī vel metū poenārum.
*separated from governing noun (?) (quondam is post-positive?) Separation not used until after a few instances of being used predicatively.
· 40 interim, ut sollicitūdinem dissimulāret et speciem amīcitiae praebēret, Salvium dōnīs honōrāvit, ad cēnam invītāvit, cōmiter excēpit.
· 40 fāma praetereā vagābātur reliquiās corporum in thermīs Aquārum Sūlis repertās esse, dēfīxiōnēs quoque nōmine Cogidubnī īnscrīptās.
· 40 fāma praetereā vagābātur reliquiās corporum in thermīs Aquārum Sūlis repertās esse, dēfīxiōnēs quoque nōmine Cogidubnī īnscrīptās.
· 40 prīmō diē cognitiōnis Glabriō crīmina levia et inānia exposuit.
· 40 postrīdiē Ursus Serviānus, quī cognitiōnī praefuerat, sententiam prōnūntiāvit: nōmen Salviī Fāstīs ēradendum esse;…
· 40 aliī exīstimābant Domitiānī īram magis timendam esse quam minās accūsantium;…
*present participle
· 40 postulāvit tabulās testāmentī.
Genitives nested inside prepositional phrases or inside noun/adjective pairs.
· 29 illā nocte Eleazārus, dē rērum statū dēspērāns, Iūdaeīs cōnsilium dīrum prōposuit.
· 30 apud Haterium tamen nūllae grātulantium vōcēs audītae sunt.
*present participle, 1st on its own?
· 32 …sed Euphrosynē ab eiusmodī actīs abhorruit.
· 40 ingēns senātōrum multitūdō in cūriā convēnerat, ubi Gāius Salvius Līberālis accūsābātur.
· 40 diē dictā, magnā senātōrum multitūdō ad causam audiendam in cūriā convēnit.
· 40 eōdem diē mīrum fideī exemplum oculīs populī Rōmānī obiectum est.
Genitives used predicatively? (Separated from the noun it modifies by the verb? I am uncertain what the grammarians mean by “predicatively” and I found the examples unhelpful.)
· 28 Belimice, tē rēgem creō mortuōrum.
· 37 Domitiānus autem nūllum signum dedit neque odiī neque gaudiī neque invidiae.
· 39 ipse tridente suō terram percussit, at ill / intremuit mōtūque viās patefēcit aquārum. (Ovid)
· 40 subitō extrā cūriam īnfestae vōcēs sunt audītae clāmantium sē ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse sī poenam scelerum effūgisset.
*present participle used predicatively modifying vōcēs and governing an indirect statement.
The first set above are those that are piggybacking on prepositional phrases to add that additional visual cue that we indeed have genitives at hand. There is only one example in Stage 17, post cumulum gemmārum. There is only one from the 2nd set, those without the visual cue of the prepositional phrase, cumulum lapidum fulgentium. Both of these come from the story mercātor Arabs. This latter example I find curious. To begin with, it is the first example of a genitive occurring without a prepositional phrase. There’s also one in Stage 18, the very last sentence in the chapter (nunc Clēmēns est prīnceps tabernāriōrum). We don’t begin to see genitives without a prepositional phrase regularly until Stage 19. The second curious thing about this example is that it is the first time time we see a genitive with a present participle, fulgentium, which we don’t see again until Stage 21 (more on that in a moment). In fact, we don’t even get present participles until Stage 20. Then again, CLC often sneaks in previews of grammar to come. I’m betting, though, that this one hardly gets noticed. It is glossed thus we don’t need the visual cue to help students understand that this is a genitive and most students (or teachers) never reread old stories to notice those details.
In Stage 19 we get five examples of the Genitive of Definition/Material with both words for “crowd”—post multitūdinem puellārum, post turbam puerōrum tubicinumque, in hāc multitūdine servōrum, turba Alexandrīnōrum, multitūdō spectātōrum. Students and teachers never question theses phrases being genitives because “of” flows so naturally in the English, but it’s not like these crowds belong to the girls, the boys, the trumpeters, the slaves, the Alexandrians, or even the spectators. However, they are made up of these people; the crowd is defined by what it is made of.
I’m making a point about “crowds” because it is with multitūdō that CLC throws students a curve ball in Stage 21 with this sentence: in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit. This is the first time we see present participles in the genitive plural once we have formally been introduced to present participles. And in fact in this one sentence we have two of them, and each is demonstrating that half verb/half adjective quality of the participle: aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium has an adverb modifying the participle, nested in the middle of the phrase; fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium has a direct object governed by vituperantium—and even it has its own participle, absentem. (Ok, and I love the Memorem absentem line because of the line in Book 4 of the Aeneid: illum absens absentem auditque videtque.) It’s definitely a loaded sentence. I would like to think that if we as teachers make a big deal of having “crowds OF people” already, this more extended version with a present participle is doable. And if students think that this sentence is overly long and overwhelming, we can remind them that this is exactly the way Cephalus is supposed to feel here—overwhelmed by what he has been ordered to deal with, and certainly people shouting and cursing would be upsetting for him.
The present participles used in the genitive, especially those on their own acting as substantitives with the meaning “of those verbing,” have always interested me. It’s the sort of thing that trips up my students and I have wondered whether there was a better approach to teaching them. If we have discussed with students, whether formally or informally, about Genitive of Definition/Material, then I think these genitives can be easier to recognize. Consider the first example from Stage 30, apud Haterium tamen nūllae grātulantium vōcēs audītae sunt, which has the genitive all by itself nicely nested between the adjective and noun. We can assume that those missing voices of those congratulating him would be of clients, since in the previous paragraph in the story Salvius is being congratulated by clients. And in fact we discover in the next sentence that Haterius hasn’t been allowing clients nor friends into his house. The next two genitives on their own are tōta ārea strepitū labōrantium plēna erat (later in Stage 30), which is followed fairly closely in Stage 31 with ubīque sonitus labōrantium audiēbātur. If we compared these to the ones in in thermīs multitūdinem aegrōtōrum vehementer clāmantium fabrōrumque Memorem absentem vituperantium invēnit, we could discuss with students that it was necessary to specify that it was the crowd of sick people shouting as opposed to the crowd of craftsmen cursing. But when there is nothing to specify in that regard, one doesn’t need to include virōrum or hominum. There are a few more instances of the present participle in the genitive without a noun acting as a substantive: strepitum pulsantium (34), faciem…natantis (36, Martial; the only singular), and minās accūsantium (40). Although they are nowhere called “substantives” in the Language Information section, they are remarked upon under Uses of the Participle. (Adjectives used as substantives are not remarked upon whatsoever that I can find, which is disappointing.)
In Stage 22, where we have the difference between Genitive of Possession, Partitive Genitive, and Genitive of Description explained, we also have this one time (at least through Stage 40) occurrence of summa = sum, total. I think it is worth taking a diversion to discuss with students that we see forms of summus in several different constructions in Latin and the translation does vary depending upon context:
· 22 quanta est summa illōrum?
How great is the sum of those [figures]?
(with a Genitive of Definition/Material or perhaps Possession)
· 22 prope virum SUMMAE VIRTŪTIS stō.
I am standing near a man of the highest/greatest courage.
(in a Genitive of Description)
· 15 intereā Dumnorix, quī summā cum cūrā nāvigābat, circum mētam nāvem dīrēxit.
Meanwhile Dumnorix, who was sailing with the highest/greatest care, steered his boat around the turning point.
(in an Ablative of Manner)
· 29 …ultimae marmoris massae ad summum arcum tolluntur.
…the last blocks of marble are being raised to the top of the arch.
(simple adjective—not sure how better to explain)
In Stage 29 we start seeing Genitives appearing before the noun they modify. The first example is ūnā cum eīs in carcere erant quīnque līberī, QUŌRUM Simōn nātū maximus sōlācium mātrī et aviae fere temptābat, where we are not surprised to find the relative pronoun, which naturally comes first in a relative clause, being in a case that is not normally first in a sentence. The next two examples having a genitive come first are these, and both are Genitive of Definition/Material:
· 29 spectātōrum tanta erat multitūdō ut eī quī tardius advēnērunt nūllum locum prope arcum invenīre possent.
· 29 avium cursus ab auguribus dīligenter notābātur.
Of these two, the very first one harkens back to “crowd” (see above). I do not know whether it is significant, but the first instance of the genitive occurring after the verb and separated from the noun it modifies appears in Stage 28 (Belimice, tē rēgem creō mortuōrum), perhaps to get us used to the genitive being in different places depending on context or emphasis. Placement can also be determined because the genitive doing more than just modifying the noun, such as this substantive present participle:
· 40 subitō extrā cūriam īnfestae vōcēs sunt audītae clāmantium sē ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse sī poenam scelerum effūgisset.
Not only does it come after the verb, it also governs the indirect statement, sē ipsōs Salvium interfectūrōs esse, which follows it. This is something I really like about the progression or evolution of constructions in CLC: once you get a handle on the construction, it gets combined with other constructions to make that densely packed periodic Latin that we love (or should love). After all, this sentence has a perfect passive verb with the participle coming after sunt and not before it, a present participle in the genitive plural acting as a substantive which in turn is governing an indirect statement which also contains a condition!
So, let me say that I think that the Genitive of Definition/Material is one of the types of genitives which CLC should mention. Clearly we get by without it because if you know that the genitive means “of” you can easily translate cumulus gemmārum as “a pile of gems” or multitūdō spectatōrum as “a crowd of spectators” etc. But I think it would be a much easier shift in concept when we get to strepitus pulsantium, “the noise of those pounding (on the door)” if we already had this concept in our mind of the genitive defining that pile or that crowd or that noise by explaining what material the pile, the crowd, or the noise is made of. We are, indeed, specifying what the pile consists of, what kind of crowd it is, and even what the noise is from.
If you use the About the Language with students, you may note that in the one in Stage 17 provides this information:
A. Study the following sentences:
· ad portum Alexandrīae mox pervēnimus.
We soon arrived at the harbor of Alexandria.
· in vīllā Barbillī erant multī servī.
In the house of Barbillus were many slaves.
· mīlitēs Rōmānī per viās urbis incēdēbant.
Roman soldiers were marching through the streets of the city.
[A variation of what is really seen in the model sentences:
multī mīlitēs per viās urbis incēdunt.]
· in multitūdine Aegyptiōrum erat senex.
In the crowd of Egyptians was an old man.
· agmen mīlitum per urbem incēdit.
A column of soldiers is marching through the city.
[I cannot find any use of agmen with a genitive in CLC, not that anything is wrong with this sentence, and mīlitum used in the genitive this way only occurs 3 times (in 24, 27, & 34)].
The words in the boldface are in the genitive case.
I do take issue with the last example because nothing like it is seen in this stage and I believe all examples in the About the Language section should be taken straight from the stories. But I digress. In the About the Language II: More About the Genitive in Stage 22, you will find:
A. In Unit 2 you met examples of the genitive case like these:
· marītus Galatēae erat Aristō.
Galatea’s husband was Aristo.
[No, this sentence was not used.]
· prō templō Caesaris stat āra.
In front of the temple of Caesar stands an altar.
[Actually it was prō templō Caesaris erat āra.]
These are obvious examples of Genitive of Possession. Although not called such here (which I have no issue with), the Language Information section does have Possession identified as a use of the genitive case. The About the Language section in Stage 22 then continues on with examples of Partitive Genitive/Genitive of Quanitity, and Genitive of Description. What is notably absent now are the examples of Genitive of Definition/Material. It’s not in the examples, it’s not mentioned or shown subsumed in another category in the Language Information section. And yet it was important enough to include in the Stage 17 About the Language. Why does it disappear? Why not get students who want to understand the workings of language with that tiny bit of extra information to think on—that genitives can be used to define and specify?
But no matter. Teachers should always remember that textbooks are merely tools to use and that they as teachers are in charge of what is taught. I find CLC to be a fantastic tool which I learn more and more from each year, and I have been teaching from it for over 15 years now. We teachers can use our own ingenuity to reinforce what we think is important.
Teachers could have great fun orally engaging students by changing up some of these genitives in an effort to point out that these are Definition/Material when encountering pōculum vīnī (estne pōculum aquae? lactis? CocaColae?) or perīcula bellī (suntne perīcula pacis? scholae? lūdōrum? dormiendī? autoraedam agendī?). Or if you feel as if you don’t have enough time for such side diversions when reading a story with students, perhaps you could compose a humorous paired reading activity for a “musical pairs” warm-up/ice-breaker for the beginning of class.
Another concern of mine is that not properly addressing the Genitive of Definition/Material could lead to problems later on. I found a page on the internet (which I won’t cite; I am not trying to ridicule the teacher) that had this:
Specification: The purpose of this genitive is to specify or narrow down the meaning of another word. This is also what I like to call the cop-out genitive. If you don't know how to parse the genitive, put this and you just might get it right.
I found this terribly disappointing but not surprising because we all get in a rut of teaching what we feel we need to teach (what’s in the textbook) and not thinking about the rest. I have been guilty of this laziness—or maybe not laziness but a type of blindess—from time to time, which is why I have been obsessing this summer over ablatives and genitives. The easiest (though time-consuming) part of this project has been going through and finding the sentences with genitives. The trickier part was labeling them. Sure, I understood what was going on in the sentence, but there’s a reason why those grammarians of past ages got so nitpicky. They wanted complete understanding of how things were functioning—that scientific dissection of language. We avoid it now because parsing a sentence doesn’t improve your fluency and turns into a totally tedious and mind-numbing drill. It is bad teaching if done constantly. And since the goal of CLC is not producing fluent language but being able to read fluently, the need to understand in order to produce is not necessary.
HOWEVER, piling up example after example after example as I have done, comparing and contrasting, and in the case of CLC, watching the evolution of usage, is truly enlightening. In my mind I feel like this sort of examination is like future doctors doing dissections for better understanding of human anatomy and all its variations. I love noticing something in CLC, and asking myself, “how long have they been sneaking this in?” or “how are they comparing and contrasting this concept?” and then hunting down the answer. But I digress.
Teachers jumping from CLC to AP need not feel like they suddenly have to teach all of these structures that we haven’t met before—because we HAVE met them all before. We don’t have to call it a Genitive of Specification or Material or Definition or Explanation; but we can discuss the concept. CLC’s strength is learning through reading and the repetitions in the readings. It’s just that sometimes we aren’t aware of those repetitions or evolutions. I’m hoping these little articles (which I suppose I should really be posting on my old blog which I stopped using a few years back) will raise awareness of how much “grammar” truly is in CLC in an organized way, even if it is never formally addressed in the texts.
