1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "Irati pulsamus."

"Irati pulsamus."

Translation:We angry people are hitting.

September 27, 2019



This appears to me to be a nonsense sentence. At least one should formulate it differently. Surely there must be a more sensible translation available?


It is very confusing, and due to latin's syntax, I still am not confident whether this sentence means "We fight skilled people" and is just transporting latin syntax erroneously into english, or the sentence is an indeed technically correct but extremely awkard way of saying that "We people, who are angry, are hitting."


This one caught me too, but I think it is probably correct in Latin. See cervido's astute question below, and ShanePatri's affirmative answer. This is a nice tool that Latin has which English lacks, since we need the pronoun 'we' to construct the sentence. Since pronouns are optional in Latin, they can fill in the subject with a noun even in first or second person.

That said, I think the creators of the exercise should have explained this in the Tips, and either used an intransitive verb or supplied an object for pulsamus.


A sentence which is correct in latin should still not be translated into incorrect grammar in the translating language.

Unless this sentence means "We people, who are angry, are hitting."

If it means that, then its technically correct in english but horribly awkward and essentially never used--and thus does not succeed at what a translation is supposed to do.


Yes, that is exactly what this sentence means. It is not an uncommon literary device, at least in the Latin texts that I read in school, particularly the Aeneid.

I agree that it is introduced/presented poorly here, though. It's just not something that English does as naturally as Latin. Some kind of explanation or tips would likely benefit learners greatly.

It would also be better if this sentence used a verb like loquimur or dormimus or cantamus or natamus or scribimus or docemus or... honestly, almost any other verb would improve this sentence.


Does this mean it is possible to define who the "we" is simply by adding a nominative plural noun?

E.g., Agricolae domum īmus. -> We farmers are going home.

Is that correct?


Why isn't it "We are hitting angry people"?


Irati is 'nominative' case: [we] the angry ones.

"We are hitting angry people", would be : Iratos [=accusative] pulsamus


Yes, one is expected to recognize 'irati' plural subject over 'iratos' plural object.

Good luck with that. I didn't. I don't think it's been drilled nearly enough.


Hitting whom? Hit is usually a transitive verb.


"Angry, we hit" [someone? something?] should be also be accepted.


"We angry men are beating" should surely be accepted?


Why is nominative used?


The nominative is used since it is describing the subject, which is 'we'.

'We are angry and we are hitting.'

'We, who are angry, are hitting.'


I don’t hear the L of pulsamus


How about "When (we are) angry, we hit.?


What is wrong with we angry ones hit?


Perhaps a question of emphasis: "en colère, nous frappons", not "nous, les enragés, frappons". Although Duolingo seems to have chosen the latter, anyway.

I'm not an English-native speaker, but perhaps "We, the angry ones, hit" might be accepted. Still, you should report it.

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