1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "I go from home."

"I go from home."

Translation:Ego domo eo.

September 6, 2019



Could we able to use "a domo eo"?


No, simply because domus is one of a few nouns (plus the names of cities, towns, small islands) that doesn't use prepositions for "motion FROM" and "motion TOWARDS." We would say "ab urbe eo" (I go away from the city) and "a villa eo" (I go away from the villa), but with the noun domus, it's the ablative alone that carries the "motion away from" function.


I understand that, but the question is, if these nouns are not used with prepositions, period; or they couldn't be used with prepositions?


If they are not used with prepositions in extant Latin literature, doesn't that suggest that they couldn't be used with them? (Sorry to be obtuse.)

I do know that, for example, "Romam veniunt" and "Ad Romam veniunt" have distinct meanings: the first being "They come to Rome" and the second (using prep. ad) meaning "They come to the area near Rome / the vicinity of Rome ."

They can be used with other prepositions (de Roma, "about Rome"); it's just that the basic directions (TO and FROM) and the basic location (IN/AT) don't require the normal prepositions that you'd use with, say, the noun "urbs" (city).


What's the difference between ablative domo vs domu alternatives? Can one choose what they want, or is there some rule to choosing one over another?

On the wiktionary page, they state:

At least in later Latin, the most common declension is as follows: domus, domus, domui, domum, domo — domus, domorum, domibus, domos, domibus.

So it's a matter of a time period, where the domu declension is an archaic form and no longer used?


Allen & Greenough show that it's a noun with 2 stems (the 4th decl. pattern and the 2nd decl. one); they comment that many of the 4th-decl. plant names also come in 2nd-decl. varieties, so it looks like the "confusion" was very old.

I've been taught to think of the "adverbial" forms (domi, at home; domo, from home; domum, [to] home, homewards) as coming from the 2nd decl. 'side', whereas the word house, domus, belongs to the 4th decl.

The Oxford Latin Dictionary shows that the 2nd decl. set of forms (acc. pl. domos, for example) is old; I'd think of that as the archaic set, and that they're "fossilized" in the directional / locational forms (all of which have 2nd decl. endings; of course, the accus. -um ending is common to both 4th and 2nd).


Dicolatin gives a very good answer.

  • DOMO 1rst century BC, CICERO (when it's the alternative for Domui, sing dat.)

  • DOMU 1rst century BC, CICERO , (alternative for Domo, sing. abl.)

  • DOMUI 1rst century BC, CICERO (alternative for the loc. Domi)

  • DOMUIS 1rst century BC, VARRO, (alternative for sing. gen. Domus)

http://www.dicolatin.com/FR/LAK/0/DOMO/index.htm (in French)


"I go from home" seems quite wrong to me, as English. I can't imagine a situation in which I'd ever say this. In every case, I think I'd change it to some form of, "I'll be coming from home."


I think it's meant to be "I'm leaving (from) home now"--where we don't need the "from" (which is why I put it in parentheses), but which is implied; and is relevant to the Latin, which has 3 forms of "home" to differentiate among AT home, TO home, and FROM home.


I can imagine such a situation. "I go from home to the station every day." "I go from home via the highway, then I turn left".


I wrote your same answer and still got it wrong. Again.

Learn Latin in just 5 minutes a day. For free.
Get started