I have a question on proper form. When using a word from an inflected language while writing in English, is it proper to leave the word in its nominative case, or to place it in the declension proper to its role in the English sentence? This one always causes me to hesitate for a few seconds when writing.

(I have seen it done both ways)

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

While I do follow your question, may I see an example?

__________________
Anna
Wife of Tim/Marrow Man
Louisville, KY
Member of Midlane Park Presbyterian (Associate Reformed Presbyterian)

Is it a single word or a phrase?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

I have no idée quoi tu veut to say mais an example pourrait a good idea.

__________________
J. P. Grigoletti II * Lay-man * Église Réformée du Québec
Québec, Québec Canada * Member: Église Reformée St. Marc
http://Grigoletti.blogspot.com - blog
<<There are three things necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily: the first, how great your sins and miseries are; the second, how thou may be delivered from all thy sins and miseries; the third, how thou shall express thy gratitude to God for such deliverance.>>

Anna, this would certainly be a dumb example, but...

I went to the store with amico meo.

or

I went to the store with amicus meus.

Ruben, that should answer your question as well.

I vote for declension, having seen the examples. I translated both versions in my head, but the declension seems to make more sense to my untrained ear.

Second.

__________________
Austin
EE student at Texas State University
Member of Church of the Cross (PCA) in San Marcos, TX
Ps. 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

Perhaps a more fitting example:

...which impacts only the modus subsistendi, and not the essentia.

Or

...which impacts only the modum subsistendi, and not the essentiam.

This is H.W. Fowler's advice.

From The King's English

I defer to the expert...

Who would dare to deliberately transgress Fowler? But I have observed a different practice. "Jus divinum" is a good example: "there is a jus divinum of church government;" "church government is jure divino." Perhaps Fowler's examples are awkward for other reasons, e.g., ellipsis, gerund, etc.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I have not been able to track down any authorities other than Fowler who address the matter, so I asked on A Way With Words to get a contemporary opinion. Skimming Browne, however, it seems that his usage is in line with what Mr. Winzer says, and with the linguistic authority of Sir Thomas I would think Fowler could be defied.

Another argument may be the blending of languages by those who are so immersed as to be almost unaware of the difference - people living along the Mexico-US border are one case in point. In Tex-Mex the words are frequently jumbled up, but when a Spanish word is used it is declined as it would be had the whole sentence been uttered in normal Mexican Spanish.

Thanks Ruben, that's very helpful.

To add to the authorities whose usage is not in accordance with Fowler's dictum, I think the section "The unwillingness of our chief adversaries, that the Scriptures should be divulted in the mother tongue, &c." in The Translator to the Reader from the AV has an instance to the contrary in the reference to Tertullian.

Also Dryden in Of Dramatic Poesy and C.S. Lewis in The Weight of Glory (to give the practice of some of our most eminent critics from quite different times) will use inflected forms without always including the governing word.

It seems to be an instance where the rule contradicts the practise, as when Dryden laid down that sentences should not be ended with prepositions.

I guess I'm just a purist. I also refuse to call these "forums" rather than "fora." It's just stubbornness.

And here is the answer from the Way With Words forum.

I would think that in the example above the ablative would be fine, but without the redundant 'with' beforehand. Surely the ablative on its own gives the same idea. I know Paul just gave it as an 'off the cuff' example, but my vague impression is that when Latin tags preserve a particular case ending, they tend to perform the same function in the English sentence as is indicated by their inflection.

Just an offhand thought which I am sure can be proved wrong! However, it does help to make sense of Matthew's example of 'iure divino

__________________
Ben Nelson
Elder, South Yarra Presbyterian Church (PCA - Presbyterian Church of Australia)
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia