1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Tu plurimos pisces in pavime…

"Tu plurimos pisces in pavimentum iacis."

Translation:You throw very many fish onto the floor.

August 31, 2019

This discussion is locked.


Instead of 'very many', one might use 'a lot (of)' in the translation. So, "You throw a lot of fish onto the floor", which is better English.


"very many" needs to be dropped. (Please see my more substantive comments on this topic elsewhere in this lesson.) It's not okay. And I'm going to keep posting comments until it's fixed because DL staff not only hasn't corrected this but is arguing with people. I've never seen anything like this in any other DL course. Please don't be convinced otherwise. You should not be using the phrase "very many" in English. There are a plethora of better options


There aren't very many people like you who are so stubborn to use a phrase that isn't so uncommon. :)

  • 2603

There is nothing wrong with "very many".


We can modify many with very, a great or so:

Very many people have complained about the situation.
There were a great many questions which were left unanswered at the end of the investigation.
Why do so many people watch reality TV shows?


Try using a great many instead of very many, not quite as jarring in most sentences.


No. Because "a lot of" is multa, and simply "a lot of", here it's the superlative of "a lot of", meaning there is a very large quantity, and not simply a large quantity.


Why is "plurimos" translated as "VERY many"? Why not simply "many" (or "most")?


Because they need to differentiate between "multus, -a, -um" and "plurimus, -a, -um". I think "most" would be "maxima pars".


It can mean "most of" too, depending of the context.

Most = the greater quantity of, the greater amount, the greater number of.

But "plurimus" is both, the greatest quantity number/quantity and in extremely big quantity/amount, etc...

So: 1/ An absolute superlative = the greatest quantity of all = the maximum possible of it. = also a way to say it's a very large quantity, with an exaggeration.

And so 2/, from this exaggeration, simply a way to say a very large amount.

We can see this superlative especially in Italian, bellissima = even more beautiful (than only "beautiful".)

Here it's the superlative of "multus" = even more multus (a lot) than a "simple" multus.

Quam plurimum = the most it is possible.

Source: Gaffiot translates it both, with "une très grande quantité" (a very large amount), and "la plus grande quantité" (the largest amount, so, "most of").


"You throw very many fish on the floor" - in UK English using 'onto' would be mannered and a little odd. I accept it makes it easier to differentiate between in + acc and in+ abl - but it isn't a 'good' translation to write 'onto' here, I think.


It sounds rare, I guess, but it's grammatically correct.

It's an example of "double preposition" in English. (here, on+to)

"The baby climbed onto the table"


"In general, use onto as one word to mean “on top of,” “to a position on,” “upon.”


"He climbed onto the roof."

From the 2 sentences given as example here for "onto", it seems to indicates an idea of "moving" in English too, like "into" would be a move toward the interior. It's probably the difference with the simple "on"?

[deactivated user]

    Where in the UK? In Kent both “on” and “onto” would be acceptable. “Onto” is certainly not mannered or odd (I’ve just asked around as well, to make sure I’m not older than I think I am).


    The answer requires "tu"?


    No, it's optional, and emphatic.


    Perfidus/a. (Or Perfide/a?)


    Would you use a different preposition to say "at the floor" rather than "on to"?


    I am seeing a "pl." option (or button) below the sentence in this lesson. Does anyone know what that is all about? Is it something to do with "pisces"/"fish" being plural?


    So things are considered "in" the floor in Latin, it seems, rather than "on" it? And things are thrown "into" it rather than "onto" it?


    Why is "plurimus pisces" in the nominative? Isn't it the direct object of "iacis"? AFAICT, "pisces" could be either nom or acc but "plurimus" is definitely nom - shouldn't it agree with "pisces"?

    In other words, shouldn't this be "Tu plurimos pisces in pavimentum iacis"? Wiktionary gives "plurimos" as the masculine plural accusative of "plurimus".


    Duo's sentence does in fact use "plurimos"; I think you must have misread it. You're right that "plurimus pisces" would be ungrammatical.


    I definitely wrote (in a transcription exercise) "plurimus pisces" and it was accepted as correct.


    Duo seems to often be fairly generous in accepting typos. Even if it accepted your answer, it probably gave you a message saying you had a typo and showing the correct answer as well.

    • 2603

    If you're only one letter off, it will let it slide by as a typo.

    1. Unless it makes another real word.
      a. But not if it's another form of the same word.
    Learn Latin in just 5 minutes a day. For free.