the context. tence, we shall not distinguish their different nominatives and it is often no slight matter to decide upon the subject nominative, or, as it is called in schools, the nominative: even the greatest philologists have confessed their inability to determine it, in some difficult passages of the ancients. As a point of great importance for understanding the ancients, we shall treat accurately of both first, of the subject nominative; secondly, of the predicate nominative.

Unless one understand the whole sen

§ 1.

Of the Subject or principal Nominative which precedes the Verb.

I.) Every sentence must begin with a subject or principal nominative; this is also the first word to be determined before one proceeds further: e. g. virtus reddit nos felices, virtue renders us happy: if we had felices nos virtus reddit, or reddit nos virtus felices, still virtus is the subject: again, pater tuus est doctus, thy father is learned, or doctus est pater tuus; pater tuus is the subject in both: so, omnes homines sunt mortales, or mortales sunt omnes homines; omnes homines is the subject in both. It is the same in connected sentences; as, pater imperavit, ut filio libri traderentur: in the first sentence pater, in the second libri, is the subject. Note. Though properly it should precede only the indicative and conjunctive, yet sometimes it is before 1) the imperative; e. g. aperite aliquis, for aperiat, Terent. Ad. 4. 4. 24: aperite atque Erotium aliquis evocate, Plaut. Men. 4. 2: 2.) the infinitive in narrations: see after, No. 2. Obs. 4.

Exceptions. This principal nominative often fails :

A. When it may be easily understood: it is then generally omitted: e. g.

1.) The pronouns ego, tu, nos, vos, are generally omitted, because being the only nominatives to their proper terminations, they are easily understood: e. g. oro te, ut ad me venias, for ego oro te, ut tu ad me venias. So Cic. Cat. 1. 2, habemus enim, for nos habemus: ibid. vivis, et vivis non ad deponendum, for tu vivis: ibid. cupio me esse clementem, for ego cupio: ad Div. 14. 15, si vales bene est, valeo; for si tu vales —, ego valeo ad Div. 16. 13, omnia a te data mihi putabo, si te valentem videro. Summa cura exspectabam, where ego three times fails: Ovid. Am. 3. 4. 17, nitimur in vetitum, cupimusque negata, where nos twice fails: Cic. Manil. 2, causa quæ sit, videtis; and so continually.

Note. Yet these pronouns must be expressed 1.) when an emphasis is intended, that is, when they are pronounced with a certain stress; as, am I he? egone sum? thou hast done it (no other man), tu fecisti. So Virg. Æn. 1. 1, ille ego, qui quondam gracili modulatus avena - arma, virumque cano: Virg. Æn. 7. 335, Juno says to the fury Alecto, tu potes unanimes armare in proelia fratres: Terent. Andr. 1. 1. 1. vos istæc intro auferte, you there, take &c.: ibid. 2. 1. 10, tu, si hic sis: Cic. Cat. 1. 2, at nos vicesimum iam diem patimur hebescere aciem horum auctoritatis: sometimes the pronoun is even doubled for great emphasis; Cic. Cat. 1. 1, nos, nos, dico aperte, consules desumus. 2.) in an antithesis; as, ego sum pauper, tu dives: frater tuus ne amat, tu me odisti: Auct. ad Herenn.. 4. 53, ego reges eieci, vos tyrannos introducitis: ego libertatem, quæ non erat, peperi: vos partam servare non vultis: Hor. Epist. 1. 10. 6, tu nidum servas, ego laudo ruris amoni rivos: Virg. Ecl. 1. 5, nos patriam fugimus, tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra formosam resonare doces Amaryllida silvas. Yet they are sometimes used, where they might be omitted; as, non tu quidem, &c., Cic. Fat. 2. 1.

2.) So ille, is, and other nominatives are omitted, if they have been lately expressed: e. g. pater te amat, et in perpetuum amabit; for et pater (or et ille) in perpetuum &c.; where it is evident that pater or ille (sc. pater) is understood with amabit : and so in other instances.

Note. A nominative is often omitted when not itself but some other nominative last preceded, if it may be readily understood : e. g. pater filio imperavit, ut ad se veniret: so in questions, audivistine rem? audivi. Yet the following omission of the nominative is rather harsh, Liv. 45. 20, omnibus sermonibus muneribusque et præsens est cultus Attalus et proficiscentem prosecuti sunt; i. e. Romani: prosecuti sunt without Romani is harsh, since Attalus is the preceding subject: it may however be explained like aiunt, sc. homines; so prosecuti sunt, sc. homines: ibid. 28, ubi et alia quidem visa, (sc. sunt ab Æm. Paulo) et Iovem veluti præsentem intuens motus animo est: sc. Æmilius Paulus. Still harsher is Sall. Iug. 101. 5, dum eo modo equites præliantur, Bocchus cum peditibus, quos Volux filius eius adduxerat, neque in priore pugna, in itinere morati, adfuerant, postremam Romanorum aciem invadunt. Here a nominative is wanting to adfuerant: for neque in priore, et qui non in priore would have been more accurate.

3.) The nominative fails to the third person of certain verbs, especially those which mean, to say, to tell &c., as aiunt, dicunt, ferunt, sc. homines: this nominative from popular usage being commonly omitted. This sometimes also happens with other verbs, as credunt, arbitrantur, admirantur &c.: e. g. Cic. Off. 2. 11, nemo iustus esse potest, qui anteponit. Maximeque admirantur (homines) eum, qui pecunia non movetur: quod, in quo viri perspectum sit, hunc igni spectatum arbitrantur.

--

4.) A nominative very often fails with the third person of sum, when qui follows and represents the subject; as, est qui dicat, for est aliquis or homo qui dicat: sunt qui dicant, for sunt aliqui &c. qui dicant: fuerunt qui dicerent: erunt qui dicant &c. : so est, ubi possis declarare sapientiam tuam: for est locus &c. This nominative is usually wanting in the ancients.

5.) The pronoun is often fails, when it is immediately followed or preceded by qui: as, felix est (is), qui deum amat; or qui deum amat, (is) felix est: so, errat, qui hoc credit, or qui hoc credit, errat &c.

B. With certain verbs, a nominative is always wanting, nor can any be understood:

1.) With the third person singular of passives, which have not the other persons, because their active in o does not govern an accusative: they are used impersonally, or without a preceding subject, and in the perf. the participle is neut.; as parcitur mihi, I am spared, parcitur tibi, parcitur patri, parcitur nobis, vobis, parentibus: and so through all tenses; as, parcebatur mihi, parcitum est mihi &c.: 'so, persuadetur mihi, tibi &c., I am persuaded &c.: persuadebatur mihi, persuasum est mihi &c. Yet some of these verbs are at times found with an accusative: as persuadere aliquem, Petron. 62, 64: Enn. ap. Serv. ad Virg. Æn. 10. 100. Thence also the passive is used personally; as persuasus est, Cic. ad Div. 6. 7. Cæc.: persuasus erit, Ovid. Art. 3. 679: animus persuasus videtur, Auct. ad Her. 1.6: persuasa est, Phæd. 1. 8. 7: persuasum (acc. masc.) Cæs. B. G. 7. 20.

2.) With the neuter of the part. fut. pass. when it is used impersonally and has the name of a gerund: as, est eundum or eundum est, one must go; mihi est eundum, I must go so scribeudum est mihi, I must write &c.

Note. a) These gerunds are always predicates, whose subjects fail; therefore the proper order is est eundum &c. though it may be reversed in writing. b) gerunds of verbs, which do not take an accusative, are impersonal, and do not admit a nominative before them: though of many we find an entire participle; as fruendus, a, um, utendus, a, um: e. g. facies fruenda mihi, Ovid. Her. 20. 119: fruenda sapientia est, Cic. Fin. 1.1: yet fruor and utor take also an accusative: but the gerunds or neuters of the fut. part. pass. from verbs which govern an accusative, may be used as participles, and have a nominative before them; as, hoc est scribendum, legendum: they are also used

in the other genders; as, liber est scribendus, epistola est scribenda, literæ sunt scribendæ &c.

3.) With the impersonal verbs of an active termination, the nominative regularly fails; as 1.) pœnitet, pudet, miseret, tædet, piget. Yet since we say pœnitet me laboris, pudet me facti, miseret me tui, tædet me studii, piget me operæ, it seems that these genitives are put for nominatives, and are governed by a nominative omitted, e. g. by negotium: as, negotium laboris me pœnitet &c. We also say pœnitet me fecisse, &c., where the infinitive fecisse may be considered as a nominative. To these belongs interest patris, interest mea &c. e. g. discere, it concerns &c., unless discere be the subject nominative: 2.) decet; as, me decet amare virtutem, it becomes me &c., unless amare be the nominative: 3.) oportet; as, oportet me discere, it behoves me &c., unless here also discere be the nominative. We also find oportet (ut) ego discam, where ut ego discam may be the nom. It is hence clear, that when we find homo oportet mortem meditetur, or hominem oportet mortem meditari, we must refer homo and hominem not to oportet, but to meditetur, meditari.

Note. We also find these impersonal verbs with a nominative; as, forma viros neglecta decet, Ovid. Art. 1. 509: id decet, Cic. Off. 1. 31: deceant, ibid.; also pudeo. This has been observed Part I. chap. 3. 8. 1. To these also belong ningit, pluit, tonat &c., which were there mentioned, and with which some understand cœlum, deus &c.

C. The nominative fails in the expression venit mihi in mentem illius diei, rei &c. that day, thing &c. comes to my mind. Since we find venit mihi in mentem ille dies &c., illius diei stands for the nominative. But since this does not seem so entirely to accord, apparently some word must be understood, perhaps negotium; so that negotium diei stands for dies: some supply memoria, which is less probable: but the whole matter is merely conjectural.