Search results for 'tag:Plurals tag:Nominative' matching tags 'Plurals' and 'Nominative'

Re: Plural for Curriculum Vitae

Anonymous — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 20:32:39 GMT

A CV produced by one person is his curriculum vitae. If over the person's lifetime he produces multiple CVs, then collectively they are his curricula vitae.

By contrast a bundle of CVs of different people would collectively be their curricula vitarum.

Vitae is the genitive singular, and vitarum the genitive plural, of vita.
In this context curriculum or curricula is the nominative case, singlar or plural as they cxontext requires.

Re: Plural for Curriculum Vitae

Tanit — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:14:46 GMT

9maven9
Curriculum vita is the CV of one person
Curriculum vitae are the CVs of more than one person
Vitae is the Latin plural of Vita

Hi,

Not quite...
Although it is true that vitae can be the nominative plural of vita (i.e. life used as a subject), it can also be its genitive singular form (i.e. life's, or of life). If interested, please have a look at this page from Wikipedia about the first declension in Latin.
The correct (singular) phrase, in Latin, is curriculum vitae, where vitae is genitive singular.

Re: one of those who and one of whom

Avangi — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:08:53 GMT

"Who threw the stone?" (reply) "It is one of those who are angry." I don't think "one" is the subject of anything here. It's a predicate nominative, or "complement" of the verb "is." "It" is the subject of the sentence, and "who" is the subject of the relative clause, "who are angry." The relative clause modifies "those," which is object of the preposition "of." Those who are angry are a group of angry people, one of whom threw the stone. But you would have to rephrase the sentence in order to make "one" the subject.

"Nobody in this group is angry. It is one of those who is angry." (Note that "who" may be singular or plural.) This time, "one" is still the verb complement. "Who is angry" is still a relative clause. The chief difference between these two interpretations lies in the answer to the question, "In the relative clause, what does "who" refer to?" In the first interpretation it refers to "those." In the second one it refers to "one." But that doesn't entitle "those" and "one" to be called subjects.

Your sentence "It is one of whom are angry" has a couple of things wrong with it.

"One" is now the bona fide subject of the clause, "one of whom is angry." "Whom" is object of the preposition "of," but unfortunately it has nothing to refer to.

A group of people are partying in the next room, one of whom is angry. In this sentence, "whom" refers to "group."

Re one of those who / one of whom, the difference is often only a technicality. She decided to give it to one of those who love her. She decided to give it to one of those whom she loves.

The key lies in the subject and object of the clauses. In "who love her," "who" is the subject, "love" is the verb, and "her" is the object. In "whom she loves," "she" is the subject, "loves" is the verb, and "whom" is the object.

"Who" and "she" are nominative case, "whom" and "her" are objective case.

Best regards, - A.

Re: corpus/corpora - ethymology

Anonymous — Sat, 31 May 2008 07:36:41 GMT

It's all to do with gender. Cactus and fungus are masculine nouns of which the proper plural ends in -i. Corpus is actually a neuter noun. Hence, the proper plural (nominative case) ends in -a.

It's 'corpora' rather than 'corpa' because the genitive singular case defines the stem of the noun. The genitive singular case of corpus is 'corporis'.

Re: corpus/corpora - ethymology

Tanit — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:20:44 GMT

Hi,

The short answer would be: such question are dangerous, try and learn them by heart!
The long answer is: in Latin, they have different inflected forms because they belong to two different "classes": 2nd declension and 3rd declension:

Fungus (same inflected forms in "cactus"): 2nd declension
    Nominative: (singular) fungus => (plural) fungi
    Genitive: (singular) fungi => (plural) fungorum
    Dative: (singular) fungo => (plural) fungis
    Accusative: (singular) fungum => (plural) fungos
    Vocative: (singular) funge => (plural) fungi
    Ablative: (singular) fungo => (plural) fungis

Corpus : 3rd declension
    Nominative: (singular) corpus => (plural) corpora
    Genitive: (singular) corporis => (plural) corporum
    Dative: (singular) corpori => (plural) corporibus
    Accusative: (singular) corpus => (plural) corpora
    Vocative: (singular) corpus => (plural) corpora
    Ablative: (singular) corpore => (plural) corporibus

Now, have a look at the nominative case:
fungus >> fungi
cactus >> cacti
corpus >> corpora

Re: one or two was

Hoa Thai — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:57:57 GMT

Avangi wrote:
Good morning, Hoa Thai,

I appreciate the research. I think your second example is a little bit different, but I'm not sure I can explain it. The gist of it is, ten years ago you might have gotten one or two [things] while now you get twelve. Since the verb is "to be" you can exchange the subject with the predicate nominative and the meaning is the same: "Betty is my sister. My sister is Betty." So your sentence could read, "A decade ago, the norm [the normal amount] was one or two." Or you could say, "The amount was two or three." "Norm" and "amount" are singular nouns and would take the singular verb "was." I think it would be like saying, "The score was two or three," and then turning it around and saying, "Two or three was the score." Nobody would say, "Two or three were the score." But I don't know how to justify it formally.

Regards, - A.

(Thanks, Philip)

P.S. Looking back at Jack London's piece, we missed one of his baddies: "Most of those oyster pirates was shot or died in jail." "Most" is a plural noun, like "many", and takes the plural verb, "were."

Hi Avangi,

Your "exchanging the subject with the predicate nominative" comment reinforces what I learned but did not often pay attention.

Thank you for spending your time helping me to think a bit deeper.

Best Regards,
Hoa Thai

Re: one or two was

Avangi — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:05:40 GMT

Good morning, Hoa Thai,

I appreciate the research. I think your second example is a little bit different, but I'm not sure I can explain it. The gist of it is, ten years ago you might have gotten one or two [things] while now you get twelve. Since the verb is "to be" you can exchange the subject with the predicate nominative and the meaning is the same: "Betty is my sister. My sister is Betty." So your sentence could read, "A decade ago, the norm [the normal amount] was one or two." Or you could say, "The amount was two or three." "Norm" and "amount" are singular nouns and would take the singular verb "was." I think it would be like saying, "The score was two or three," and then turning it around and saying, "Two or three was the score." Nobody would say, "Two or three were the score." But I don't know how to justify it formally.

Regards, - A.

(Thanks, Philip)

P.S. Looking back at Jack London's piece, we missed one of his baddies: "Most of those oyster pirates was shot or died in jail." "Most" is a plural noun, like "many", and takes the plural verb, "were."

Re: Please translate these Latin sentences into English.

Tanit — Tue, 08 May 2007 19:44:23 GMT

Hi,

Your sentences contain many mistakes, both spelling and punctuation ones.

The first sentence is part a Christian prayer (shortened form, I put '...' where parts of the text are missing):

Credo in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem; factorum coeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium ... Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est; et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas... Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit ...

I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible ... was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures ... And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son ...

This translation is not mine (I only selected the sentences you posted, and changed "We" with "I" because your text reads "credo", 1st person singluar, instead of "credimus", 2nd person plural), but comes from here.

As for your second sentence,

Jackson6612 wrote:

Hominus similis daeus quis chaedit ad Latin.

it's not as famous as the first one; what's more, there are too many mistakes, which make it impossible (for me) to translate it. Could you please check your text? I haven't been studying Latin for many years, but, if my memory serves me correctly, it could be either:

"Homo similis deo qui ..." (homo=man,nominative; deo=God, dative) => It is similar to God a man who ... (this should be the most likely one)

"Homini similis deus qui" (homini=man,dative; deus=God, nominative) => It is similar to man a God who ...

(only assumptions, though!) I cannot go on with the sentence because "chaedit" doesn't exist and I can't imagine what it is supposed to be.

Re: Predicate Nominative

CalifJim — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:23:24 GMT

I don't know exactly what you mean by "treating as a single entity".

I was not treating -- at least I was not aware that I was treating -- peanut butter and jelly sandwiches as a single entity.

I think the answer you're looking for may be "Necessarily so". The fact that the predicate nominative is singular means there must be at least one way of conceptualizing the plural subject as a single entity of some kind.

It sounds like a chicken-and-egg sort of thing.

CJ

Re: About English plural 's'

Alienvoord — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:00:21 GMT

Anonymous wrote:
Latin, Romanian, Italian do not use "s" to form the plural. Who started it?

Latin does use "s" to form the plural of words in some cases other than the nominative. Perhaps this is where the plural "s" in Spanish and French come from.