Capitulum VII — Puella et rosa

A rose, a mirror, some tears — and, behind that family scene, the case that was missing. After the nominative, accusative, genitive, vocative and ablative, here comes the datīvus: the one to whom something is given. The chapter adds two new pronouns (sē, hic haec hoc) and one quiet but essential novelty: in + accusative.

The datīvus, case of the receiver

The book names the case after the verb that calls for it: datīvus (abbreviated dat) < dat, “he gives”. Here are its forms in the two declensions you know:

Almost nothing new to learn: you have written these forms already. That is exactly the danger.

• -ō and -īs are identical to the ablative. What tells them apart: the dative never takes a preposition. ā servō is an ablative (agent); bare servō with a verb of giving is a dative.
• -ae is already the genitive singular and the nominative plural. rosa puellae = “the girl's rose”; puellae rīdent = “the girls laugh”; puellae rosam dat = “he gives the girl a rose”. Only the sentence decides.

The full paradigm of servus now has six cells: servus, serve, servum, servī, servō, servō.

Three participants in one sentence

A verb of giving requires three of them, and each has its case:

Cornēlius servō mālum dat. — Cornelius gives the slave an apple. who gives (nominative) — to whom (dative) — what (accusative)

The same with a kiss, which in Latin is “given”: Tullia Cornēli*ō ōsculum dat*.

Cui …? asks for the receiver, and the answer is a bare dative:

Cui pater mālum dat? — Puerō. / Cui rosam dat? — Puellae.

The same cui serves as a relative: puer cui pater mālum dat (“the boy to whom…”), puella cui pater rosam dat. One form for all three genders.

Finally the pronoun is ea id gains its dative: eī in the singular (masculine and feminine alike), iīs in the plural — the book prints iīs and glosses it itself as iīs (= eīs).

sē: the third-person reflexive

Puella sē in speculō videt. — The girl sees herself in the mirror. Līvia sē vertit. — Livia turns round.

Three facts: sē has no nominative (you cannot be the subject and point back at it); it has one and the same form in singular and plural (puerī sē vertunt); and here it appears in the accusative only, prepositions included (post sē, ad sē vocat). The dative sibi comes much later.

hic, haec, hoc — “this one here”

The near demonstrative points at what is close to the speaker. The chapter gives only its nominative singular, one form per gender:

A major trap: the demonstrative hic has a short i; hīc “here” (chapter III) has a long ī. Both occur in the chapter, two lines apart. Its far-away counterpart, illīc “over there”, likewise stands against hīc.

in + accusative: the place triad is complete

in changes case according to the question:

And ex has two spellings, exactly like ab / ā in chapter VI: ex before a, e, i, o, u, h; ē or ex before any other letter — ex ātriō, but ē vīllā.

nōnne? num? immō

Two loaded questions that do not want the same answer:

Nōnne fōrmōsa est haec rosa? → “yes” is expected. Num foeda est haec rosa? → “no” is expected.

And to contradict what has just been said, one word is enough: immō, “on the contrary” — nōn foedus sed fōrmōsus.

plēnus + genitive

plēnus (↔ vacuus) does not take the ablative, but the genitive:

saccus plēnus mālōrum — oculī plēnī lacrimārum

Correlatives, imperatives, compounds

Three pairs to keep: et… et (“both… and”), neque… neque (“neither… nor”), nōn sōlum… sed etiam — where sōlum (long ō, an adverb) = tantum.

The irregular imperatives are best learnt facing the indicative: est / sunt → es! este!; dat / dant → dā! date! (long ā in the singular, short a in the plural); it / eunt → ī! īte!

Lastly the compounds, which the book takes apart for you: in-est / īn-sunt (the i lengthens before -ns-), ad-it, ex-it / ex-eunt, ad-venit.

One-line takeaway: dative -ō / -ae / -ō, plural -īs, never a preposition; dat + nominative + dative + accusative; Cui? → eī, iīs; sē accusative with no nominative; hic / haec / hoc (short i) ≠ hīc; in + acc. to go, + abl. to be; plēnus + genitive; nōnne expects “yes”, immō contradicts.