1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Psittacos illos igne deleo."

"Psittacos illos igne deleo."

Translation:I destroy those parrots with fire.

August 29, 2019



Someone really hates parrots


Only the drunk ones...


That's because they burn better with their high alcohol content!


Wow. Nice one... And, for the first time, a recent comment


Censeo autem psittacos ebrios delendos esse!


like Inspector Clouseau, I am always ready for the unannounced arrival of Cato...


Why did they drink too much? Because of the fire... :-))


Those are the most combustible ones


Bubo viridis est...


That eeeeeeviiiil owl


A bit harsh, I think.


Nothing is to harsh for those angry, drunk, deceitful, birds. (They were greedy for my gems anyway)


Romae non est PETA.


Which one?
Peta is also a (minor) Roman goddess.


Fire is the ultimate cleanser.


But parrots are adorable. Evil things need cleansing. Like people who commit psittacicide.


LOL! Now I've learned a new British English word: to shag!


A word useful to know, but less useful to be dropping into general conversation!

Please also note that it is the name of a perfectly innocuous seabird. And - trust me - all the double-entendre potential of this fact has already been fully explored in the UK...


It is also the name of a grade of pipe tobacco...and everything after "trust me" in bonnythedog's post applies here too!! :oD


Are you at all interested in ornithology ;) ;)


Depends on the age of the group, sometimes it is a very common word in a conversation.


giving you a lingot becasue its so cool that you are learning all the languages


This would be a great opportunity to learn the word for "spider," so we can destroy them woth fire too


Looks like you can use aranea (1st decl.) or araneus (2nd decl.).

Araneam illa igne deleo!


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.


I'm guessing Wasps are different in North America.

Wasps are arseholes


(disappearance, not disparition)

In the US, insecticides are destroying the bee population :(


Collecting dolls and bones, murdering drunk parrots, what next, Duo? We're worried about you.


... you should be worried about your family if you don't make certain to keep practising your Spanish lessons...

  • 1030

Surely there are enough inanimate objects (eg atrium, house, university, bridge) to use as examples to avoid the need to destroy parrots!!


One does not burn parrots out of necessity, but out of passion.


Yeah... but drunk dishonest parrots that fight is the mascot of DuoLingo Latin for English Speakers.


And also hurl Spears


Don't you remember?

"Psittaci ebrii sunt animalia pessima."


Honestly, what did the parrots do to deserve this?


They are deceitful and drunk. Have you not been paying attention at the back!! In mitigation, they do sing sweetly...


If we had to destroy everyone who is deceitful and drunk, the senates will be less crowded.


So we are in agreement then xD


They probably expressed heretic tenets while they were drunk.


Gotta work on some of those anger issues Duo. No wonder they drink.


No! Not the parrots!


Could someone explain (grammatically) this sentence please ? Is there an ablative on ignis ? How to express ''by'' and/or ''with'' there?


You are correct. Ignis is an ablative of means. When something is used as a means or instrument it is used with the ablative without "cum".


Abalative = by, with or from


Finally a question that isn't parrot themed.

Clearly you are an agent for the parrots xD


The first comment that's not laughing at parrots


Someone has an issue with parrots.


Well, they are drunk and deceitful.


Those parrots must've made their owner mad. There weren't animal cruelty laws back then.


Jokes about the sentence itself aside, following the noun the demonstrative, ille is only poetic or for emphasis, otherwise it should precede it.


Yes, but each time we played to move the verb, at the end of the sentence, in the middle, at the beginning, it was also emphatic.


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?".


A suggestion for those that do not like to have insects at home: the green, sustainable and lovely answer is just to have a cat.


I have a spider family (they're all called Octavia) to keep the insect population under control, and a cat to discourage rodents


It is the only way to be sure...


Kill it, kill it with fire!


Saepe dei delent illos qui psittacos igne delere velint. This is the gods being proactive. Velunt would be after the fact. Of course, somewhere there may be mistakes in there. I am open to suggestions...


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!


It's the only way to be sure. Better hit them with salt also.

  • 1941

Is this written section by some budding psychopath?


That's my feeling also!


Not very environmentally friendly, aren't we?


If you mess with parrots, you mess with me.


They're certainly flammable enough with their apparent drinking habits


Who is worried about parrots when there is someone who collects dolls and bones?


that's you, that is....I heard you say so!


"I destroy those parrots with fire", said Satan


Implying that these Parrots, as drunk and deceitful as they are, are not currently in league with Satan.


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?


It's historically accurate. Goths invaded Rome.


Isn't that illegal?


A sentence with different word-order needs to be accepted: "I destroy with fire those parrots" (as opposed to "I destroy with poison those parrots," vel sim.).


In English you could never say "I destroy with fire those parrots". It simply doesn't work in the ENGLISH language. I justifiably got upset when Duolingo marked me wrong for transposing Latin words in a listening exercise, but in English, word order really does matter!


And in case you think I'm being prescriptivist, my PhD thesis contains countless examples of prepositions at the end of sentences in an Old English manuscript from circa 950, I'm just saying that clause order does not work that way in Modern English.


What is your doctorate in? (E.g. of a preposition at the end of a sentence, ironically.)


Oh, medical texts in Old English, and their Latin sources.


So! An Old English speaker! Yeah. (maybe a course someday here?)


I'm also commenting in support of a possible Old English course.


A course in Old English would be a sensible development to complement Latin and Classical Greek.


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.



It baffles me that you think that sentence can't work in English. I can se saying that on a day I am cross with a group parrots on one side of the room versus the other that has not crossed me.


Yes: "and I destroy with water those parrots over there!"


... okay, but can you destroy parrots with facts and logic?


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.


Yeah... but typically if you go around talking like how the Bible is written people assume you have an untreated mental health disorder.

  • 1667

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.


I mean you could if you wanted to sound incredibly pretentious.


I didn't say natural, I say possible. Pretentious speech is a kind of style, it can be used to make a character talking for instance. I make the difference between ungrammatical (that can't be said) and unnatural (that can be said).


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...)

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_case

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).


You don´t have to use so cruel sentences to learn Latin. Do respect the animals!


No real parrots are implied or disrespected. It's virtual. Like in a game.


Just because it is not real you can say anything? Why not "I want to kill your mother with fire", "I want to behead your mother"?


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.


What is the difference between these and those ( i am german)


"These" close to me, plural of English "this," and translations of Latin hic, haec, hoc.

"Those" remoter from me, plural of English "that," and translations of Latin ille, illa, illud.

(Isn't it like dieser vs. jener, in German?)


It is, but "jene" is rarely used anymore outside of formal language. In everyday use, you'd more likley say "diese hier" and "diese da". (These here and these there.)


Diese und jene. Auf Deutsch keine sehr gebräuchliche Unterscheidung mehr, aber wenn man zwei Gruppen Papageien hätte sollte man eigentlich "diese" (these) für die benutzen die näher ist und "jene" (those) für die die weiter weg sind.


Was there an instrumental case in Latin? I didn't know.


The instrumental case has fallen together with the ablative. A major use for ablative is "means by which" the action is accomplished (like, "with fire" or "by fire," as here, i.e., with what means I destroy the parrots).


If "illos" is the word for "those," what is the word for "these"?


"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!


I made a mistake doing timed practice (hurrying) and wrote, "I destroy their parrots by fire." How would one correctly say this? "Psittacos eorum igne deleo?"


Yes, exactly right!

You could also use illorum (gen. pl. of ille, illa, illud, from which we're using the accus. pl. illos in the sentence) as an equivalent of eorum.


I made a mistake doing timed practice (hurrying) and wrote, "I destroy their parrots by fire." How would my sentence be correctly translated? "Psittacos eorum igne deleo?"


There is too much hostility towards parrots; I am getting tired of it.


Great Duo, what's next?


These sentences are getting grimmer and grimmer. Who wrote them?


Et Duo loquitur, "bene!"


Someone must have a traumatic childhood because of parrots.


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.


It's a pity that "I destroy with fire those parrots" isn't accepted.


Go several inches up from here, and you'll find a discussion about this very question!


Now we know why there are not many parrots in the mediterranean area


What's wrong with I destroy those parrots with fire. ?


Nothing that I can see...


Cum igne? (I don't know the case for ignis)


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)


Yet they somehow survive to be drunk and sing sweetly.


Sound like a latin Shakespeare version of the movie "Office Space" It is a metaphor. They are referring to how drunk people talk alot. Perhaps they gave away the speakers secrets... Spread rumors about him/her. And this person wants to destory them with fire


Sounds like a latin Shakespearean version of the movie "Office Space" It is a metaphor. The speaker is referring to how drunk people talk alot. Perhaps these drunk people gave away his secrets or spread rumours about him/her. Now this person wants to destroy them with fire.


Sounds like a latin Shakespearean version of the movie "Office Space" It is a metaphor. The speaker is referring to how drunk people talk alot. Perhaps these drunk people gave away his secrets or spread rumours about him/her. Now this person wants to destroy them with fire.


Sounds like a latin Shakespearean version of the movie "Office Space" It is a metaphor. The speaker is referring to how drunk people talk alot. Perhaps these drunk people gave away his secrets or spread rumours about him/her. Now this person wants to destroy them with fire.


Y'all need an intevention. Leave dem birds alone!


Fried Parrot, it's what's for dinner.


Roast Parrot, it's the taste sensation sweeping the Roman Nation


And the developers' slow descent into madness reaches its peak.


Suitable vengeance for them destroying the villa "by chance."


Super awkward change in speaker half way through this sentence. Jarring and badly cut enough that the end of the second word wasn't intelligible.


This is very cruel and inhumane.


Yet they return, again and again. Those Phoenix like parrots


Ok this is getting violent


Those parrots were Witches! Burn, Witch! Burn!


And they went right up because they're full of alcohol


Goodness the parrot hating is getting really bad.


BWAHAHAHA! Serves them right for the excessive drinking!


I would desert this course in protest if I was not so close to the end. I find it unnecessarily violent, teaching next to no grammar, and using obscure vocabulary.

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