"The soldiers buy healthy lunches."
Translation:Milites prandia sana emunt.
I've just found one example of "sanus" being applied to innert things.
They give "Right, correct" for sanus;
Nihil erat in ejus oratione, nisi sincerum, nihil nisi siccum atque sanum. — (Cicero)
But not "healthy". Seems to me an anglicization of the Latin meaning of the word here.
I support the question.
donum, doni (Nom. sg., Nom. pl.) → dona,donas (Acc. sg., Acc. pl.) (2 decl. neut.) - the gift
prandium, prandii (Nom. sg., Nom. pl.) → prandia, prandias (Acc. sg., Acc. pl.) (2 decl. neut.) - the lunch
Why "prandiaS sansaS" isn't accept for " ... lunchES" ?
The nominative plurals of donum and prandium are dona and prandia not doni and prandi (which are second declension masculine [and the few that are feminine] endings).
The accusative singulars are donum and prandium (same as the nominative singular), not dona and prandia.
The accusative plurals are the same as the nominative plural: dona and prandia, not donas and prandias (first declension endings, not second).
Neuter nouns has the same ending for the nominative, accusative, and vocative singular (-um in the second declension). And the same ending for the nominative, accusative, and vocative plural (-a).
I think it would be an unusual order for this one. I think only the copula (esse) often stands in the middle of the sentence (because it links the subject and the predicate), whereas other verbs usually go to the end. So, "ego sum vir" sounds fine, but "ego emo prandium" is unnatural, "ego prandium emo" is better. But that's only how I perceive it, I may be wrong.