I don't like to be in the same room than a spider, but spiders eat cockroach-like beasts and mosquitoes, so they are very precious in a house.
But I prefer fire, even if it's very cruel, than insecticides, they are also our poison, and the cause of the disparition of the birds in the French countryside. One day there will be zero bird.
People cannot stand a little "insect" (yes I know spiders aren't insects) so they kill birds instead by poisoning the air. No insects = no birds.
It's a difficult balancing act. Certainly if locusts are attacking your food supply (as they are in Ethiopia) the solution is not to burn the crops. And really, if a wasp nest formed on the eave of your house, would you really set fire to you home to get rid of them?
Wasps are very useful if you have a garden, you won't need insecticide for your tomatoes with them. A few wasps shouldn't be killed as they won't attack you if you don't threat them. On the other hand, a wasp nest should be destroyed, because it's very dangerous (I would prefer to move it, but it's hard to do.)
In France, we usually call the firemen, and they destroy the nest if it's wasps, and they move the nest if it's wild bees (it's not always wasps, it's sometimes wild bees). Sadly, it's not free anymore. If it's an Asian hornet nest, it's a good thing to destroy it, as it's an invasive species.
But spreading chemical insecticides is never a solution. I see people who spread those chemicals for instance for mosquitoes or house perfumes with their babies or their dogs in the same room: they are crazy. They poison their family and the wild life. Bio insecticides do exist (pyrethrum) and they target only the insects, not your children, animals (contrary to the synthetic molecules), or the wild birds. But it's still dangerous for many insects that are useful, and food for birds. Repulsive also exist and are very efficient: for instance lavender oil.
Yes, some parrots do sometimes hit the amphora -- but wouldn't you after being made so relentlessly the scapebird for all the city's ills? That still gives no-one the right to destroy any of them so igneously/ ignominiously. I say that a little investigation of the habits of those smug, so-called wise, owls (so many of whom are on Minerva's payroll despite so infrequently advancing sapientia by instar digiti unius) would not come amiss.
Just as an aside (English- rather than Latin-related question), but why does everyone keep referring to drunk parrots? In my book ("Pissed Psittacines: Nemesis of the Glory That Was Rome?") they are always and invariably drunken parrots.
After all, no one -- not even SpongeBob SquarePants himself https://youtu.be/FNXPA0mQAbc -- ever sings: "What shall we do with the drunk sailor?".
Looks good to me!
We need velint , present subjunctive, in the subordinate clause (just as you wrote!), because it's a subordinate clause (of the "indirect question" type) following a present-tense main verb (delent). "Often the gods destroy those who (would) wish to destroy parrots with fire." For the parrots' sake, let's hope that it's true!
Especially these kinds: https://cdn.trendhunterstatic.com/thumbs/bottle-holders.jpeg
just parrots, not got or bad parrots. There are other "strange" sentences that match well with what Satan would say, for ex: "Per umbram ascendere volo." Is Latin Duolingo made by mentally healthy people, or they are just satanists? They don´t have better ideas for exercises?
Okay; I hear you; but I guess I just said it with brio (or something)--honestly surprised that they didn't accept it. Of course we don't have the freedom of Latin word order, in English, but ... (I kind of like the postponement of "those parrots" for special effect.)
I still don't see why they shouldn't accept it, adverbial phrases in English are flexible. A lot of English speakers forgot that. (maybe because a lot of people have some trouble to recognize an adverbial phrase)
"Like adverbs, adverb phrases can cause confusion because there is some flexibility in where they occur within sentences, and even in modifying the sentence structure.
I think it's your opinion because it's maybe not usual, but I've found no written rule to forbid the use of the prepositional sentence "with...." in this position of the sentence.
I guess it's still correct, but simply unnatural nowadays.
The Bible says: "I destroy with fire all offspring resulting from such marriage"
So, if we want to imitate the Biblical text style, it could be said.
And it's not ungrammatical.
Peradventure that be related to the fact that ‘all offspring resulting from such marriage’ is quite a mouthful; deviations from the usual word order are more likely when a constituent is unusually heavy. I reckon ‘I destroy with fire those parrots resulting from such marriage’ would not meet much objection.
Just to clarify, in English poetic syntax you can have a parenthetical clause between the verb and direct object, but the natural order of English syntax is subject> verb> direct object> indirect object (or other subordinate clause). Also, I'm un-following this discussion, because I don't want to keep getting the owl in my primary inbox.
"with fire" is not an indirect object, it's a prepositional phrase.
The rule for direct object/indirect object placement can't be applied to prepositional phrases. I noticed that many English speakers make the confusion. This confusion is more rare in Romance languages. And yet, the grammar roles of words are linguistically the same.
See here for a definition of "indirect objects":
Indirect objects receive the action of the verb, but in a secondary way to the direct object. The classic examples in English use the prepositions to and for.
Dig hole with shovel for him. Pick up the hot plate for her with the gloves.
Here, the only indirect objects are "for him" and "for her", not "with the gloves".
"With the fire" is not something that receives the action of the verb.
Same thing in any language. I won't consider that "avec une pelle" in "Je creuse avec une pelle" is an indirect object. That's not. It's an adverbial phrase of manner (= by means of...)
Modern English expresses the instrumental meaning by use of adverbial phrases that begin with the words with, by, or using then followed by the noun indicating the instrument:
I wrote the note with a pen ( by means of).
I wrote the note (by) using a pen ( by means of).
What's the problem with saying it in a sentence? There could be a Duolingo sentence with "I kill your mother with fire". I know they don't talk about my mother. If you think it's yours each time you hear such a sentence in Duolingo, there's a problem.
I saw a comment where "I drink milk" was the sentence to translate, and a vegan said: I quit, I won't translate this sentence. I saw "I eat pork" and some people said the same. When you read a book with those sentences, do you burn the book? When it's on your TV, do you destroy your TV?
There's a difference between seeing a sentence in a virtual place like a course to learn grammar, and living the reality of the sentence. There's no magical involved here, and learning a sentence won't make it happen in real life, don't worry. You can smash dozens of parrots in a game, it won't make you someone who is cruel to animals. They are all virtual. If you make it with real parrots, that's another deal.
"Hos" is the word for "these," describing the masculine plural accusative "parrots" (psittacos).
For the most part, the words "these" (plural of THIS) and "those" (plural of THAT) use the endings of the 1st and 2nd declensions that are familiar on Duo from "ebrius" and "fessus." Particularly in the singular, though (genitive & dative sing., plus the 'odd' masc & neuter nomin sing), the forms have more in common with pronouns like is, ea, id ("he, she, it") than the "us, a, um" adjectives.
The stem h- is used for THIS, pl. THESE, close to me: Hi discipuli, hos discipulos, hae discipulae, has discipulas, etc.
The stem ill- is used for THAT, pl. THOSE, further away from me (or 'famous' / 'infamous'): illi discipuli, illos discipulos; illae discipulae, illas discipulas.
Hope that helps a little!
Only a fragment of the comments on here actually talk about the above-seen sentence grammar-wise. Could the off-topic comments please be removed lest one have to laboriously cherry-pick the useful comments? Whensoever my comment is off-topic even the slightest bit, it is mercilessly removed; therefore, my request is fair. Cheers.
No; if "with fire" means "by means of fire, using fire," then the word "fire" is an ablative of means , and with those, you never use a preposition.
Cum + ablative meaning "(together) with" is used mostly of people: I destroy it with friends, Cum amīcīs id dēleō .
(igne is the correct ablative for ignis, ignis , m., fire)