haec tum nomina erunt, nunc sunt sine nomine terrae.

Shouldn't terrae be terrarum?

haec tum nomina erunt, nunc sunt sine nomine terrae.
(My interpretation) haec tum nomina erunt terrarum, qui nunc sine nomine sunt.

A. 6. 776.
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Shouldn't terrae be terrarum?
No. Terrae is the subject of sunt.
(My interpretation) haec tum nomina erunt terrarum, qui nunc sine nomine sunt.
Besides not being the right interpretation, at least not literally (the general idea is right), note that that is also grammatically incorrect because qui doesn't agree in gender with terrarum.
 
No. Terrae is the subject of sunt.

Besides not being the right interpretation, at least not literally (the general idea is right), note that that is also grammatically incorrect because qui doesn't agree in gender with terrarum.
But isn't the passage trying to say that these will be the names of the presently nameless lands? What, grammatically, is connecting nomina with terrae?

haec tum nomina erunt, nunc sunt sine nomine terrae.
(Literal translation) These will be the names then, the lands now without name.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
But isn't the passage trying to say that these will be the names of the presently nameless lands?
That's the idea, but not what it's literally saying.
What, grammatically, is connecting nomina with terrae?
Grammatically, nothing. Only the context does.
haec tum nomina erunt, nunc sunt sine nomine terrae.
(Literal translation) These will be the names then, the lands now without name.
"These will be the names then; now the lands are without name."
 
Top