How long did it take you to learn Latin?
- Thread starter soror mystica
- Start date
Gratias tibi pro emendatibus, sed adhuc vereor ut intellegam quid in sententia tua "ellipsi" significet...ellipsis*, is (in ablātīvō)... verbum Graecum (*ellipsin, *ellipsī...)In Graeōrum linguā, nī fallor, "-eos" cāsum genetīvum habet.
Emendationibus.
It means the same as in English, "ellipsis".sed adhuc vereor ut intellegam quid in sententia tua "ellipsi" significet...
LOL, don't look at me like that. I'm tired from studying
Emendationibus.
 Tongue.gif "(1) Tongue out :p")
(Acceptable imperfection, you know...
)Re ellipsis: yes, I got that
but what ellipsis was he talking about? 
I mean that I omittted the first neque, but it was understood as it would be there. I also think it is not really a mistake (I in fact believe it so strongly that I didn't even bother to look it up since it seems to me that would have to be too easy to find a fitting example). But PP thought she should point it out... so she did
With this sentence, he meant to say "you want to be neither Puella nor dedicated to peace anymore" or "you don't want to be Puella nor..."jam Puella neque Pācī dēdicāta esse vīs
The most straightforward way of saying this in Latin would be to repeat neque: iam neque Puella neque paci dedicata esse vis.
With one neque, it looks at first sight like "now you want to be puella but not dedicated to peace".
But he used only one neque, and said that the other one was there by ellipsis.
As to whether this construction is found in classical authors, I don't know, but it's possible, if he's seen it... I personally saw it once but it wasn't in a classical text.
Ah, I see. For some reason I only looked at her quoted version of your sentence (which had both) and thought she was criticizing the first neque being there...was confused.I mean that I omittted the first neque, but it was understood as it would be there. I also think it is not really a mistake (I in fact believe it so strongly that I didn't even bother to look it up since it seems to me that would have to be too easy to find a fitting example). But PP thought she should point it out... so she did
PP: I didn't think about the ambiguity you mentioned (and I grant you that it is there), but otherwise I would retain the argument I gave before and a moment ago.
No problem
I've found three examples mentioned in the OLD: one in Velleius Paterculus (but Googling it, I found many versions that had two neque's, so perhaps it's doubtful), one in Valerius Flaccus, and one in Gellius.
Well, I cannot vouch for the exact mental pattern I had when I was writing it but in my mind I rather probably just changed the word order a bit (instead of putting neque before the elements it negates), so I guess you would have to look rather into the poetry for this. - Changed in a sense that I posponed the negation as I was writing it, since I was composing the sentence on the run.
But it didn't occur to me you might see it as ambiguous, the second interpretation simply never came to my mind. If it did, I would have understood better your incentive while correcting it back then.
But it didn't occur to me you might see it as ambiguous, the second interpretation simply never came to my mind. If it did, I would have understood better your incentive while correcting it back then.
It's proven that it can be done now, anyway, even in prose, even if it isn't very frequent. As to ambiguity, the context really demanded for it to be interpreted with the first part being negated in meaning as well, so the ambiguity (to someone knowing the context) was only theoretical.
Alio modo hoc explicare possum;
"Linguae" solum sunt viae ideas transferre. Ideas linguis tibi transferre possum. Ac tu mihi linguis ideas transferre potes.
Ignoscite mihi, sed, quid velis mihi dicere cum illo commentario, ut atque idiota sim? Vel ut illud dicere erratum sit?
Factum est qui pauperes Romani, pauperesque mundi, non erant intelligentes. Donec revolutio industrialis, maioritas populationis mundi non fuit intelligens, propterea quod modo classici (homines cum pecunia opibusque) potuerunt studere; qua de causa solum classici fuerunt intelligentes.
A scriptum erratum meum, ideas in traductio tua mutabantur.
Illac, dixisti ut *cum fluentia solum linguam litterariam loqui fieri possit.
Cogito ego ut recreare linguam nostram fieri possit, ut homines cum voce eam loqui possent.
Etiam dicere volui ut fieri possit quoque modo antiquo linguam nostram loqui, quod imitare formam antiquam fieri potest, et per illam, fabulare cum aliis. Ac velim dicere ut si linguam simplificatur, lingua cum voce uti possimus (linguam scriptam manutenere possumus). Exemplar: Formae dativo genitivoque constructiones "ad + accusativus" et "de + ablativus" fieri possunt.
Gratias, et tu, cura ut valeas!
Non possum
Optiones fororum non mihi licet nuntiationes transmittere. Quid facere debeo?Bene, lego discoque cum libris. Multos habeo.Reading original Latin also helps to write better in that you'll learn, by reading them, how to express ideas in the way that's natural to the language.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean (your sentence doesn't make sense grammatically; I only get that you wanted to say something about the options of the forum not allowing you to do something, I don't know what). I'm telling you that you should review Latin grammar, starting with indirect discourse. What does it have to do with the options of the forum?Non possum