Excuse me for necro-posting, but the declension of nouns in the second line here made me suspicious and I turned to the dictionary. Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar (1903) entry on the dative of possession* (para. 373, pp. 232-233, online at https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-possession) states that it is the one for whose sake something exists that is in the dative, e.g. Est mihi domī pater (Ecl. 3.33) → I (dat.) have a father (nom.) at home, literally there is for me at home a father; est mihi liber → I (dat.) have a book (nom.) EY’s English meaning comes out as “neque domini defensor”, whereas “neque defensori dominus” translates back to English as “no champion hath a lord”.
* not really possession, as it expresses the idea of something that is there for the benefit of something else, like the Classical Chinese coverb 為.
Excuse me for necro-posting, but the declension of nouns in the second line here made me suspicious and I turned to the dictionary. Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar (1903) entry on the dative of possession* (para. 373, pp. 232-233, online at https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-possession) states that it is the one for whose sake something exists that is in the dative, e.g. Est mihi domī pater (Ecl. 3.33) → I (dat.) have a father (nom.) at home, literally there is for me at home a father; est mihi liber → I (dat.) have a book (nom.) EY’s English meaning comes out as “neque domini defensor”, whereas “neque defensori dominus” translates back to English as “no champion hath a lord”.
* not really possession, as it expresses the idea of something that is there for the benefit of something else, like the Classical Chinese coverb 為.
In “no Lord hath the champion”, the subject of “hath” is “champion”. I think this matches the Latin, yes? “nor for a champion [is there] a lord”