I find English inadequate for me as a native English speaker, I don't know maybe my grammar is just bad: an example: "The boy kicked the ball under the table." Is that a legitimate sentence? Was the ball under the table when kicked or is that where the ball ended up? It seems I'm often running into this kind of problem when trying say something and I'm wondering if Latin would clearly differentiate between the two meanings?
Yes, in Latin there cannot be such an ambiguity because Latin nouns cannot be modified by prepositional phrases, so you couldn't say "Dissero virum in Luna" ("I discuss the man on the moon") if you meant that the man you discuss is on the moon, only if the Moon were where you discuss him (that is, 'in Luna' couldn't cling to the noun 'man', only to the verb 'dissero'). To convey the first meaning you would have to say something along the lines of "Dissero virum in Luna situm" ("I discuss the man situated on the moon"), "Dissero virum in Luna stantem" ("I discuss the man standing on the moon"), "Dissero virum qui in Luna est" ("I discuss the man who is on the moon").
I tried this exercise and arrived at: "homo luna contium feci" and "homo lunā contio feci". i. I tried to make a distinction between vir (the ideal man) and homo (the onomastic man). I think it is good to have more options on words meaning "man". ii. Not sure if the locative can always be triggered with long ā. Anyway, I just do it. "luna" to mean the adjective and lunā to mean the locative plus being the ACC in an "o-a-o" type of ACI. iii. For some reason, words with the prefix con- seems more amicable to me, just a personal preference. iv. Anyway, FYI on the two forms that I came across.
If you meant that the boy kicked the ball and the ball was under the table when it was kicked, you would say "the boy kicked the ball that was under the table". The ambiguity in this context is not because of the inherent syntax of the English language but more so because we can't be sure if the speaker is communicating with perfect grammar and therefore have to guess based on context.
"Me and him were eating out" is just grammatically incorrect. It is like saying "I don't see no man". Just because people say it doesnt make it academically correct.
Then "eat" is intransitive in that context. Simple. Some verbs can have multiple transitivities, and there are languages that have different words for, for example, the transitive and intransitive versions of the same verb.
Do you ❤ CLASSICS? Are you interested in LATIN? 👉 pacus.es/ytlatinzero
Great explanation Mr. Paco!
Thank you!! this is excellent
People don't say it, but should be "Whom did you see" not "Who"; the 'm' is a reminder that it's "I saw him" not "I saw he" (him=Object, he=Subject)
Gratias tibi ago.
You've made mistakes but I thank you for opening my eyes.
I find English inadequate for me as a native English speaker, I don't know maybe my grammar is just bad: an example:
"The boy kicked the ball under the table." Is that a legitimate sentence? Was the ball under the table when kicked or is that where the ball ended up?
It seems I'm often running into this kind of problem when trying say something and I'm wondering if Latin would clearly differentiate between the two meanings?
Yes, in Latin there cannot be such an ambiguity because Latin nouns cannot be modified by prepositional phrases, so you couldn't say "Dissero virum in Luna" ("I discuss the man on the moon") if you meant that the man you discuss is on the moon, only if the Moon were where you discuss him (that is, 'in Luna' couldn't cling to the noun 'man', only to the verb 'dissero'). To convey the first meaning you would have to say something along the lines of "Dissero virum in Luna situm" ("I discuss the man situated on the moon"), "Dissero virum in Luna stantem" ("I discuss the man standing on the moon"), "Dissero virum qui in Luna est" ("I discuss the man who is on the moon").
I tried this exercise and arrived at: "homo luna contium feci" and "homo lunā contio feci". i. I tried to make a distinction between vir (the ideal man) and homo (the onomastic man). I think it is good to have more options on words meaning "man". ii. Not sure if the locative can always be triggered with long ā. Anyway, I just do it. "luna" to mean the adjective and lunā to mean the locative plus being the ACC in an "o-a-o" type of ACI. iii. For some reason, words with the prefix con- seems more amicable to me, just a personal preference. iv. Anyway, FYI on the two forms that I came across.
@@chamorvenigo I promise you that not knowing beans about Latin is not a sin nor a shame. You really don't need to pretend that you do.
If you meant that the boy kicked the ball and the ball was under the table when it was kicked, you would say "the boy kicked the ball that was under the table". The ambiguity in this context is not because of the inherent syntax of the English language but more so because we can't be sure if the speaker is communicating with perfect grammar and therefore have to guess based on context.
"Me and him were eating out" is just grammatically incorrect. It is like saying "I don't see no man". Just because people say it doesnt make it academically correct.
22:05 Not true. A transitive verb doesn't always require a direct object. I can say "I eat" without stating _what_ I'm eating.
Then "eat" is intransitive in that context. Simple. Some verbs can have multiple transitivities, and there are languages that have different words for, for example, the transitive and intransitive versions of the same verb.
Lmao@healsyntactictrauma