1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Quot coquitis?"

"Quot coquitis?"

Translation:How many are you cooking?

September 13, 2019



I suppose we're supposed to assume "That Which is Being Cooked" will be derived from the context of the conversation.

"I'm cooking brownies", "How many are you cooking?", cetera.

Pretty silly sentence, though.


I don't think it's silly, it's only a sentence without a context. You guessed the context, so it can be understood.

Those kinds of sentences make us use our brain. Grammatically this sentence is not wrong, and in the meaning, it can be said in a dialogue.

In French, the meaning is the same than "Combien en cuisines-tu?"
But French uses the particle "en", that is not known in English, except if you translate it with "it", "of it". But it would seem very redundant to say "How many do you cook of this" in a normal dialogue.


Why not "how much"? And what is the difference between "quot" and "quanto"?

[deactivated user]

    Quot = how many? Quantum = how much? Quanto = by how much?


    -How many are you cooking?

    -Just one cookie. After which I will carry it.


    To where are you carrying the cookie?


    How many what? Or are you talking about cooks?


    How many things are you cooking. It can be cakes or anything what can be cooked.

    It's implied. The person who said this sentence already knows it, as it was stated in a previous sentence, who can see (but we cannot), it's part of a dialogue:

    -I bake chocolate cakes!
    -Oh! How many are you cooking?

    -I bake sesame breads!
    -Oh! How many are you cooking?


    In case you don't understand this sentence, it's just saying "How many [insert food name] are you cooking?"


    I think ten'll be fine, if its just the four of us.


    How many are y'all cookin'?


    How many of you are cooking? is absolutely correct. If Duolingo does not want to take this sentence as valid then they must change the Latin sentence.


    But where is the "you" in this sentence? Why does the verb end in the 3rd person plural ("they") ending, -nt ?


    You have some confusion here. The verb ends in -itis, 2nd person plural. There is the "you".


    Oh, sorry--you're right; I was looking at another part of the thread and got confused about what the original Duo sentence was.

    My apologies, Vitruvi !

    Since it's not uncommon for "five of them," "some of us," and similar locutions to be expressed as quīnque ex eīs and quīdam ē nōbīs (which are literally "5 out of them," "some out of us"), you might think of quot ē vōbīs coquitis , if you want "How many of you are cooking?" (rather than "How many are you cooking?")


    Quello che dici è vero e ben trovato, but it belongs to other level. In order to avoid ambiguous sentences and answers you can simply include a direct object. Of course, many people would consider inappropriate to write things like Quot psittacos ebrios coquitis?, but how about crustulas?


    Sure; Quot crustula coquitis for "How many cookies are you cooking?", is great. One can imagine an exchange such as: Quid coquitis? (WHAT are you cooking?); Crustula coquimus . (We're cooking cookies.); Quot coquitis ? (How many are you cooking?)

    Assuming neuter plural crustula , that is.


    how would you say "how many are cooking?"


    Isn't it Quot coquunt ? Your "How many?" in this sentence is equivalent to a "they," so you need a 3rd person plural verb (ends in -nt).

    EDIT: I suppose we could have Quot ē vōbīs coquitis ?


    It seems to me that that would mean "How many are they cooking" which is slightly different. How many are cooking could mean "how many people are cooking" or "how many things are being cooked" and I'm not sure how to say either one.


    Well, then, how about Quot coquī coquunt?. "How many cooks are cooking?" ("How many [things?/people?] are being cooked" will have a passive verb: Quot coquuntur? )


    That makes sense. Thanks.


    Quot coquitis? Why not "how many of you are cooking?" The question could be about the object of the sentence or about the subject.


    Why not "How many do you cook?"


    That's certainly as good as "How many are you cooking?", though it has the same defect, of not revealing what quot is understood to be describing. (Quot porcos / quot glires / quot pullos , etc. ? Inquiring minds want to know!)


    "how many are cooking" should be accepted


    Or would that be "Quot coquunt" ?


    This sentence makes absolutely no sense!


    Please, read my other message on this page. The meaning is implied.


    It might help if they gave it as a mini dialogue (this happens in some other places--two sentences about California, I seem to remember).

    So: Crustula coquimus. --Quot coquitis?


    It cannot be implied of there is no context. Duolingo only gives single sentences. In this case it makes much more sense to say "how many things" than to assume a conversation for context.


    If it can't be implied, how come we guessed what they mean?

    Implied means you can guess it (even when it's not said).

    How come it can be perfectly grammatical in a dialogue? If it's possible to be implied in a dialogue, it's correct in English, de facto. Not everything can be implied in a dialogue.

    So, 2 points here. It is implied and perfectly grammatical.

    In linguistics, it's called "implied complement of transitive verbs", and I'm sorry, but it's perfectly valid. (yes, it's disturbing, and it's probably the reason of your complaint, but being disturbing is another thing)

    Other examples of implied complement (not a transitive)

    Yesterday I couldn't decide whether or not to go to the beach"
    "What did you do?"
    "I went."

    The Cambridge grammar book gives other examples:

    She's the director of the company.
    Without a complement (implied):
    She's the director.

    I'm certain it's genuine.
    Implied form:
    I'm certain.

    I haven't seen her since the war.
    Implied form:
    I haven't seen her since.
    (here a transitive preposition used with an implied complement)

    All the complements given in the 2nd sentences, are implied. When something is obviously implied, we know that the previous sentence or the fact to see directly the scene explain the exact meaning of the implied thing.

    = >There's no need to have it in a dialogue, if you see the scene, the sentence is also perfectly normal.


    "The fault, dear Brutus, is not with our stars but with ourselves." Some things that make perfect sense in their original context do not translate well.


    Aneta, if you demand a direct object, which you won't always get in Latin, perhaps you can envision the glires melle, dormice dipped in honey, that Trimalchio serves (Petronius, Satyricon, 31).

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