"I covet gems and rings" really should be accepted.
Actually, 'covet' is a better translation than 'is greedy for' in practically every sense.
"I covet gems and rings" is now in the database for this prompt.
Or desire, but absolutely. They really need to fix these 1 answer words.
"to be greedy for" isn't current usage in any English speaking country. "To long for" or "to covet" are much better translations.
Or "to hanker after".
Isn't to hanker a bit different?
In Cambridge dictionary, they say it means to "wish", with a "strong wish", isn't this sentence stronger than a wish, like to be haunted by the desire, or rather "obsessed"?
To hanker has a connotation of a really strong desire
Like to yearn for.
It's not current usage, it seems to be literature usage, but it's found in Oxford dictionary (dictionary for the learners), Collins dictionary and Cambridge dictionary.
huh, sounds like my ex-wife
I love the way the speaker says this sentence. He's so convincing.
The translation 'to be greedy for' leads us to think that the verb takes the dative. So that's another reason why 'covet' or 'desire' is a better translation.
"For" would be the dative?
What an exotic word. Why non just "cupio"?
Because that's like substituting "like" for "love". "Concupisco" is a much stronger term than "cupio". You don't just want it, you covet it.
Lewis and Short give "covet" as a primary translation.
Riches beyond the dreams of avarice...
Who was Avarice?
I wrote "for gems and rings I am greedy"....why is it wrong?
It's not wrong, but it is a very unusual way of saying it--that's generally reserved for poetry and archaic-sounding speech. The typical way of saying it is "I am greedy for gems and rings."
duo marked it as wrong
Yes, because the course contributors did not put that in the database, because it is very rarely said that way. There is a difference between "The course does not accept this for reasons" and "This is always wrong 100% of the time".
Ego ignis sum... Ego mortem sum!