Come on, it's but a typo. Look at the original, it's ũ instead if i, why should that be improbable?
That's actually true. I was just too lazy to do the research Obviously, I didn't even read the whole wikipedia page.Never trust other people.
Ah. The two passages you quote both refer to a book by O. Niccoli from 1990, who seems to have looked into this more deeply ... I suppose.It sounds very much like the kind of story where you pays your money, you takes your choice.
ex + ablative can only go with verbs of origin (ex aliqua nasci/oriri etc.) as an ablativus originis.Then I'm lost!
That's how I took it at first, but as Pacifica explained, that wouldn't make much sense ... apart from that, the story is that a woman bore that monster.Ex Italia monstri allatum depictum simulachrum Ravennae ortum, ex coniugata
ex Italia allatum simulachrum | from Italy came a picture
monstri simulachrum | a picture of a monster
simulachrum Ravennae ortum | a picture that appeared in Ravenna
I suppose ortum is a misspelling for orti.Would it then be:
monstri simulachrum ex coniugata (nati)? Because there's no way ortum is with the monster, unless there was some misspelling, right?
I guess so, too. It comes from a letter, so it was probably handwritten in the original. Easy to mistake for the one who wants to print it later.Come on, it's but a typo. Look at the original, it's ũ instead if i, why should that be improbable?
Yes.It's unlikely that anyone with a good command of Latin, as this author seems to be in spite of his possible lapse with ortum for orti, would get ab and ex confused in this function. It is also unlikely that the woman brought the image herself.