1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Latin
  4. >
  5. "The actors are not in the bu…

"The actors are not in the building."

Translation:Histriones non sunt in aedificio.

November 10, 2019


  • 1191

Why is 'sunt' neccessary here? You can be in foro without needing a sunt.


I agree. Esp. since there is an expressed subject, in a simple sentence the verb 'to be' could be absent. Harm Pinkster (The Oxford Latin Syntax. Volume 1: The Simple Clause [Oxford: Clarendon, 2015] 201-204) states (204) that all forms of sum "seem to be omissible, with the exception of existential sum." He covers existential sum with examples on p. 200.


can someone explain why does "in the buliding" becomes "in aedifico"? And how to decide "o" in the end?


When using in for a static location we use the ablative case (here aedificio). The -o ending is since aedificium is a 2nd declension noun, which in the ablative singular gets that ending (the dative has the same ending).


But only if we change for "histriones".


So, as far as I understand Latin grammar, it was supposed to be S-O-V. But here, I basically a direct English grammar sort of sentence structure. Anyone out here understands why this Latin sentence betrays the standard? I'm curious.


Latin word order is flexible and different word orders can emphasize different words. Forms of the verb esse (here sunt) commonly appear between the two things it is linking (some Classical Latin authors do this quite a bit, while others do not).

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