# A Latin question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 23, 2001, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-latin-question/51411 "2001-01-23T15:57:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bb73d2/32.png) [@loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/loser)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2001, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-latin-question/51411/1 "2001-01-23T15:57:21Z")
You guys are usually quite good with his kinda thing. I’m just trying to write one line in Latin. Latin verbs, motion-towards, take the accusative. But is that ALWAYS the case, or is it just for place? Id est, when you go towards a person, not a place, is it still motion-towards-accusative? The sentence is “I fly to you.” So is it “Vos confugio” or “Vobis confugio”? And I know you’re gonna help me, because you’re good people, and you’re kind people. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2001, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-latin-question/51411/2 "2001-01-23T16:41:07Z")
For my money, it’s acc. of motion towards, but you should use the preposition - _ad vos confugio_. (It’s OK to omit _ad_ with proper nouns or the common nouns _urbs_, _domus_ and _rus_, but none of these applies here.) We usually translate Latin dative as “to (noun)”, but the converse isn’t necessarily true. (Long disquisition about actor roles in various languages omitted here on the grounds of paralyzing tedium). Mind you, I ----ed up the nom. plu. of _magnum opus_ only the other day, so maybe you should take my opinion with a grain of salt. ---
**Author:** ![loser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bb73d2/32.png) [@loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/loser)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-latin-question/51411/3 "2001-01-24T08:42:05Z")
Excellent! Thanks, Steve, whoever you are, you are a pal. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-latin-question/51411/4 "2001-01-24T09:25:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Steve Wright \* > \*\*Mind you, I ----ed up the nom. plu. of _magnum opus_ only the other day, so maybe you should take my opinion with a grain of salt. \*\* Let me guess, you mistook _opus_ as a second declension noun, thus a plural of _opi_, rather than _operes_, which I think is correct, right? Anyways, to the best of my recollection, which is hazy, you are correct about the original matter. ---
**Author:** ![Trout\_Mask\_Replica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a88e57/32.png) [@Trout\_Mask\_Replica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trout_Mask_Replica)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2001, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-latin-question/51411/5 "2001-01-24T14:30:10Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by waterj2 \* > Let me guess, you mistook opus as a second declension noun, thus a plural of opi, rather than operes, which I think is correct, right?_\* Isn’t _opus_ a neuter noun? If so, then the plural would be _opera_. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_Wright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Steve\_Wright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_Wright)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-latin-question/51411/6 "2001-01-25T18:41:36Z")
Even more embarrassing - remembered it was 3rd declension (yes, plural is _opera_), but then thought (using the word “thought” in its loosest possible sense): “oh, and _magnus_ is a 1st/2nd declension adjective, so the neuter plural is bound to be the same as the masculine, isn’t it?” (Maybe in German, pal…) My Latin teacher is still alive, so she can’t turn in her grave… Incidentally, since absolutely nobody asked, I’ll expand a bit on the need for _ad_. The accusative case is normally used for the direct object in a sentence (the patient, to use the more general term - whoever or whatever is on the receiving end of whatever process the sentence is describing). However, the accusative is also used, as noted, to indicate “motion towards”. In most instances (I first typed “most cases”, there, but that’s a whole different can of worms) you need the preposition _ad_ (“to”) to make it quite clear you’re talking about the motion. You don’t need it if your listener would automatically _assume_ you were talking about the motion - as s/he would if you used a) the name of a place or b) one of the three common nouns mentioned above - _urbs_ (“city”), _domus_ (“house”) or _rus_ (“country”). So there you are. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2001, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-latin-question/51411/7 "2001-01-25T19:14:41Z")
Well, now I feel pretty dumb too. Of course it’s _opera_. I believe the word even made its way into English. On the other hand, I last took (or really cared much about) Latin about six years ago, and was never all that great it. Hell, my high school diploma was written in Latin, and I still haven’t figured out what it says.