u/Economy-Gene-1484

Are there certain dative constructions in real Latin texts which cannot be explained with any other uses of the dative (dative of indirect object; of purpose; of reference; etc.) except by classifying them as the dative of compound verb? I mean, is that category helpful and necessary for understanding some dative constructions, or does it cause more confusion? Can you give some examples of instances where the dative of compound verb is the only possible way to explain the given construction?

Latin grammars such as Allen & Greenough §370 and Woodcock §62 have explanations of the dative of compound verb, but the late Harm Pinkster, the author of The Oxford Latin Syntax, wrote an article in which he casts doubt on the whole idea, and he basically says it's fake:

>What I have tried to suggest is that, apart from those compounds that can be seen as modifications of simple verbs that govern the dative already, the dative with most compounds can be explained by referring to one or more (classes of) verbs with a similar meaning, or – especially in creative texts – by assuming a more complicated bridge, which is non the less semantic.

I understand that the whole business of classifying and dividing all the usages of one case into different categories is somewhat artificial, but I would like to know if you think the dative of compound verb is a helpful and necessary idea. We will never know, but debate now please.

Hello everyone. I have been a fan of Camille Paglia for a long time, and I vaguely remember watching a talk/lecture of hers on YouTube in which she mentioned Napoleon in Tolstoy’s novel War and Peace. This was about 10 years ago. She was basically saying that Tolstoy shows in his novel that Napoleon didn’t have an impact on anything, despite going all over Europe and commanding many people. These remarks might have been related to a question or discussion about the Great Man theory of history. I have watched every single one of Paglia’s talks, lectures, and interviews on YouTube, C-Span, and even Vimeo, and I can’t find this particular one which I watched a decade ago. Any help in identifying and finding this talk is appreciated. Thank you.

For anybody who has finished an Assimil course, how important was the second wave of the course, in which you go back to the first lesson and must translate the translated text into your target language? Is it actually useful and helpful for acquisition? Or did you ignore it, or did you not find it helpful?

I once got to the second wave of an Assimil course, and I lost motivation to finish the course because I found translating the early lessons to be a very boring and tedious extra step in my routine. I am starting to go through another Assimil course, and I am wondering how I should tackle the second wave. Should I skip it or do it? Is it necessary to fully absorb the language? Any advice is appreciated.

Hello everyone. Here is the passage I am looking at:

>C'est icy un livre de bonne foy, lecteur. Il t'advertit dés l'entrée, que je ne m'y suis proposé aucune fin, que domestique et privée. Je n'y ay eu nulle consideration de ton service, ny de ma gloire. Mes forces ne sont pas capables d'un tel dessein. Je l'ay voué à la commodité particuliere de mes parens et amis : à ce que m'ayant perdu (ce qu'ils ont à faire bien tost) ils y puissent retrouver aucuns traits de mes conditions et humeurs, et que par ce moyen ils nourrissent plus entiere et plus vifve, la connoissance qu'ils ont eu de moy.

So I am confused about the phrase "ils nourrissent plus entiere et plus vifve". The feminine adjectives, entiere and vifve, are describing la connoissance, but they seem to be object complements (les attributs du complément d'objet direct) of the verb nourrissent. However, looking at the dictionary entry for nourrir, I was not able to find a definition which would let the verb take adjectival object complements with a direct object. If Montaigne had instead said, "ils fassent plus entiere et plus vifve, la connoissance", then I would not have any issues, but I do not know if nourrir can have this same meaning. What is the exact definition of nourrir here, and what is its relation to the adjectives plus entiere et plus vifve? Does nourrir = faire in this sentence? Any help is appreciated.

Hello everyone. Here is the passage I am looking at:

>C'est icy un livre de bonne foy, lecteur. Il t'advertit dés l'entrée, que je ne m'y suis proposé aucune fin, que domestique et privée. Je n'y ay eu nulle consideration de ton service, ny de ma gloire. Mes forces ne sont pas capables d'un tel dessein. Je l'ay voué à la commodité particuliere de mes parens et amis : à ce que m'ayant perdu (ce qu'ils ont à faire bien tost) ils y puissent retrouver aucuns traits de mes conditions et humeurs, et que par ce moyen ils nourrissent plus entiere et plus vifve, la connoissance qu'ils ont eu de moy.

So I am confused about the phrase "ils nourrissent plus entiere et plus vifve". The feminine adjectives, entiere and vifve, are describing la connoissance, but they seem to be object complements (les attributs du complément d'objet direct) of the verb nourrissent. However, looking at the dictionary entry for nourrir, I was not able to find a definition which would let the verb take adjectival object complements with a direct object. If Montaigne had instead said, "ils fassent plus entiere et plus vifve, la connoissance", then I would not have any issues, but I do not know if nourrir can have this same meaning. What is the exact definition of nourrir here, and what is its relation to the adjectives plus entiere et plus vifve? Does nourrir = faire in this sentence? Any help is appreciated. Edit: Please forgive my mispelling in the title. Can't change it now.