(Also "Marcum vivum esse videtur" where the nominative is unspecified unmentioned "id" (id videtur))
- It is indeed similar to the infinitive in nom+inf construction s which can be omitted....
I saw Romulus, when he was a king = Romulum regem aspexi (Romulum and regem share cases, therefore they have the "as" relation)
I saw Romlus when I was a child = Romulum infans aspexi (infans - nominative; ego (in the first person "aspexi") is also a nominative)
We talk about some deaf "essens"(being) or "as(ut)" which is never written we only treat it like it was there... sorry, I'm tired to death now.
- It is indeed similar to the infinitive in nom+inf construction s which can be omitted....
No that (hypothetical unwritten) "ut" would be if you had a noun and a pronoun or two nouns, not needed for a noun with an adjective, never for two clauses like this (that would mean something else and most probably a subjunctive would be required)... Forget those constructions you made as the last ones, that's something else.As for ut, which one is grammatically correct or both? (acc. or nom.?)
Iulia Marcum ut vivum videt
Iulia Marcum ut vivus videt
I saw Romulus, when he was a king = Romulum regem aspexi (Romulum and regem share cases, therefore they have the "as" relation)
I saw Romlus when I was a child = Romulum infans aspexi (infans - nominative; ego (in the first person "aspexi") is also a nominative)
We talk about some deaf "essens"(being) or "as(ut)" which is never written we only treat it like it was there... sorry, I'm tired to death now.