1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Plurimi pisces in ludo non s…

"Plurimi pisces in ludo non sunt."

Translation:There are not very many fish in the school.

August 29, 2019



Does this mean "school" as in "a school of fish"? Did ancient Romans use the term "ludus" to refer to a collection of fish?


No. Though you would use another school-related word for that: "examen".


This is the question I came to the comments section for.


I appreciate that there is a course at all, but as this topic is titled, 'Food', I would like to learn more vocabulary for food. In the vocabulary section, most of the words are adjectives and none that you would associate with food. In the whole course (so far), we only learn olives, ham, cheese, bread, peacocks, fish, eggs and maybe grapes. Did they not eat anything else? Also the verbs to eat and drink only come at the end of the last unit, instead of here. Maybe this topic could just be renamed and fish added to the other topic (Feast).


When "sum" indicates the existence (i.e. There is, There are, There was, etc.) it should come as the first (or second) word in the sentence. Otherwise it is the copula.

"Non sunt plurimi pisces in ludo": "There are not very many fish in the school" "Plurimi pisces in ludo non sunt": "Very many fish are not in the school."


Very many is just wrong


'Plurimi' can mean very many as well as most.

You could also say 'permulti' for very many.


I didn't think plurimus,a,um was very many but Whittaker gives it as *very *


But very is not an adjective. You can't have very fish.


Very fish! Much salty! So school! Wow!


Is there an ambiguity in the original Latin phrase between the meanings:

1) There are very many fish, but they are not in the school.

2) There are just a few fish in the school

What I mean is that it is not clear whether the negation pertains to "very many" or "are". How can we make this clear in Latin?


When there are not very many fish, are there more or less fish then many? Since not many is wrong, it at least has to be many fish, but not many is also not very many or am I just too logical here?


If a hundred fish are many, and a thousand fish are very many, then if you have a hundred fish, you have many, but not very many. If you have ten fish, then you don't have many, and you STILL don't have very many, but just a few. If you have zero fish, then you don't even have a few, you still don't have many, and you still STILL don't have very many.

tl;dr—"Not very many" can refer to any number less than "very many".

In English, we use "not very many" to mean "few", and we do not use it to mean "many" (e.g. we don't say "I have three cars, which is many, but not very many"). I suspect Latin usage might be simiilar, but I don't know.


"The very many fish are not in the school." How is that wrong?


Your sentence suggests there is a substance known as "the very many fish" whose whereabouts is not known. However, the meaning of the sentence is to point out something like 'the school has a deficit of fish'. Though i agree it's an odd idea!


Fish are students in Roman Universities


Instinctively I say "at school", but it turned out to be wrong.


But there are very many fish in the sea!


The lack of fish education in these parts is shocking.


Maybe I missed something in an earlier lesson, but I would think

In ludo = In school, id est, attending school.

In ludum = In the school, id est, inside a school building.

Could someone please clarify this for me?


I don't think so. I think in ludo means currently in the school, be it a building or a practice. In contrast, in ludum indicates movement in a direction toward a school. Just like "orators are in the forum" is oratores in foro sunt and "orators go to the forum" is oratores in forum eunt.


Im so confused how is very many different from many. Dont they both mean alot? Im trying not to get frustrated but i feel like there is a better way to translate this into english that isnt so confusing.


Imagine you had a dog, say a Dalmatian. Now imagine you met someone else with a Dalmatian, got married, and the two dogs had a litter of six puppies. Now you'd have many dogs.

Now if those puppies got kidnapped by a sociopathic fashion designer (and what other kind is there?), as part of a plan to make a garment out of the hides of those puppies and 93 others that had also been kidnapped, and you ended up rescuing all of them—now you'd have very many dogs!


My answer Plurimi pisces non in ludo sunt was earlier accepted!


3 times I typed in latin as requested, 3 times the response was "you typed in English" NO, I DIDN'T!


I would have expected "non" to be modifying "plurimi" for this given English translation, as in "there are, in/at the school, not very many fish". With "non" modifying "sunt", I read this as "there are very many fish which are not in/at the school". Any thoughts?


Exactly that. "Many fish are not in the school" and "Not many/few fish are in the school" are of the same thing.


Yes, but in the first, we're talking about the large number of fish which aren't at school, and in the second, we're talking about the small number of fish which are at school, and they're not quite the same thing. And it won't accept the first (very many fish are not in the school), because I tried that... :(


Oh I think "Many dollars are not in my pocket" and "Not many dollars are in my pocket" and "Few dollars are in my pocket" are the same, all meaning "sure there are many dollars but they are in somewhere else, not in my pocket".


I respectfully disagree. Each of those sentences you listed differ from each other, however subtly. "Many dollars are not in my pocket" indicates that whatever may or may not be in my pocket, there are many dollars out there somewhere that are not in my pocket. "Not many dollars are in my pocket" expresses that although there are dollars in my pocket, they are not many. "Few dollars are in my pocket" is essentially the same as the last one.


Yes sure that they are slightly different. Take an example; a friend asks you to give him some money. You say to him one of those sentences. Tadaa.. Any of the three sentences will help, with the same effect.


Why would you say 'there are not very many'? unless it is saying that there are some, but not VERY many.


Have you ever heard "not very much"? If you have, "not very many" is possible.

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