- Forum >
- Topic: Latin >
- "Piscem in mensam iacit."
56 Comments
Unless she was aiming for the floor and hit the table by accident.
868
In the translation I omitted the subject which - in my opinion - is NOT expressed in the starting (Latin) statement... of course the outcome has been 'red error' because the subject - according to DL - should have been a SHE (??)
In the translation I omitted the subject
You can't do that in English. You have to supply a subject.
which - in my opinion - is NOT expressed in the starting (Latin) statement
Well, the verb ending tells you that it's third person singular -- either "he" or "she" or "it".
It can't be "you" or "we", for example.
the subject - according to DL - should have been a SHE (??)
I think you misinterpreted the error message.
It may have told you that "She throws the fish on the table." is a correct solution.
But I doubt that it told you that "she throws the fish on the table" is the (only) correct solution, i.e. that it "must be" or even "should be" a "she".
Does anyone have an answer to this? Is there any indication of gender here?
Throughout this whole couse there's been little to no indication of gender. Somehow the Romans anticipated today's desire to say a person without a gender. In practice, I wish the course was more clear on this.
- 783
I disagree. Latin is actually very strict about grammatical gender. In fact there are three: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Whether or not that is reflected in the lesson to which you refer, I cannot say.
Let's also keep in mind that these are grammatical genders, not necessarily biological ones. It would be a further mistake to impose modern cultural viewpoints on those of ancient Rome.
Regardless, the latin sentence above has absolutely no indication of gender. But the answer only accepts She.
- 783
Fair enough. I would have done myself a favor if I had read the original post about the problem being reported.
True, but the verb implies motion anyway so I think it's an acceptable, if slightly more vague translation.
I could have sworn this contradicts an earlier problem. Someone else claimed Latin was very specific about these things. It would matter if, for example, you were at a Seattle seafood market where they do literally throw the fish at you.
Exactly. It sounds like she's standing on the table, throwing fish into the air
"You wanted fish, here's your bloomin' fish" she said, throwing it onto the table!
It has a beautiful system using the cases and there are many more prepositions. I hope they will be added to the course!
- 783
Is she the selfsame tired and angry Livia with three busy sons that we've read about before?
- 161
There's a great story in Lucius' The Golden Ass where our hero buys some fish in the market for his supper, but an acquaintance comes along and says he has been overcharged, so the acquaintance throws the fish on the ground and stamps on it. "There" he says, "that's sorted that out."
is it just me or iacere also means 'to lay' both in a passive and active sense? (I reported it just in case)
- 1430
I thought the same way and translated it as "the fish lies on the table". Thought it was the same verb.
It's like system of a down asked.
Why'd she throw the fish upon the table?
SHE WANTED TOO!
Why is it marked wrong if I say ‘throws fish’ instead of ‘throws the fish’?
Why is it marked wrong if I say ‘throws fish’ instead of ‘throws the fish’?
In English, countable common nouns almost always need a determiner before them when they are in the singular -- such as an article ("a", "the") or a possessive ("my", "their") or demonstrative ("this", "that") determiner.
"fish" is a countable common noun.
Thus "he throws fish" cannot refer to just one fish -- "fish" cannot be in the singular here, since there is no determiner before it. It has to be plural.
But the Latin sentence uses piscem (singular) and not pisces (plural), and so "fish" is not an appropriate translation here.
It has to be "a fish" or "the fish" (singular).
Why are we throwing fish? What's with throwing fish on a table or the floor?!!!
- 783
In proper formal English grammar there is no singular "they" - it is always third person plural. The singular only exists in very informal scenarios, at best.
The fact that english is missing a third person singular form of they is a problem, but I feel that a language should be allowed to change according to requirements. We can repurpose an existing word or we can create a new one. But there is no logical argument for not having one.
- 783
I understand, but disagree. English has held its own for centuries, if not millennia, with he/she/it for singular third person pronouns. Why would it need to add "they" - especially since "they" is already used for third person plural? Therefore, contrary to your statement, I see no logical argument to support using "they" as third person singular.
Appealing to tradition is not logical. What would you do instead? You can't use any of the singular pronouns either. A language should be able to adapt to its purpose.
- 783
You're absolutely correct that appealing to tradition is not logical. It is fortunate, therefore, that I am not basing any logical arguments on that fallacious foundation. I have pointed out what already exists in English.
What are you trying to accomplish by introducing a singular "they"? Why can't you use the he/she/it that already exist? What is the problem you're trying to solve?
Couldn't reply to your last post for some reason. The short version of all this is thus: We need to use something, and all the current options are wrong. So invent something new, or repurpose something existing. They is the closest fit if you choose the latter, and its what I've been doing for a good number of years.
