Egads! Don't return me to the terrible land of bare ablatives, where I have died!It also occasionally occurs with the bare ablative (without in).
If I wanted to say "there is an overabundance of water within", then: nimium aqua intus exsistit (aqua in the nominative)?
If I were to use nimis in place of nimium, would I then wish to use aqua in the nominative, rather than aquae: nimis aqua intus existit?No, because nimium is a substantive (think of it as roughly "an excessive amount" or "an overabundance", to use your very own word) so aqua should be in the genitive (as in "an overabundance of water").
Why not est?
I asked that myself too, then I've read on the dictionary that "existere" means "to gush/ spurt/ spout".
I was thinking that nimium aquae intus est would mean "an excess of water within is _____________", sort of begging a complement, while nimium aquae intus existit would mean more "there is an excess of water within". This is based upon my thinking that exsisto/exsistunt (exsisto in the 3rd person) can be used idiomatically to mean "there is"/"there are" (as opposed to "is"/"are"), not that I particularly understand that, or the semantics of how ex- + sistere can even mean "to exist", "to be"; the other senses "to appear"/"to emerge" seem to make more sense to me (I mean, what comes "out of" standing or standing something up other than that oneself or the thing so stood "appears"?), but that is another topic...Well, est would be just fine and more typical, of course, but existere can mean "to be found/exist", so it isn't really wrong.
In the original, yes; but in "an excess of water within is _____________", "within" looks like it's modifying "water" (or possibly "excess").But, intus is qualifying est (or exsistit in my original)
Satis is not an adjective (if it were, it would agree with a noun instead of taking a partitive genitive).adjectival satis
Haha, I was thinking of a different construction that I was working on when I wrote that...then I realized quickly that it was out of context pertaining to my question, and quickly deleted it (evidently not quickly enough, though). Sorry about that. Even so, though, Lewis & Short (I have heard some negative things about that dictionary, and indeed, sometimes I have trouble in reading their notation) seem to have satis as an adjective, see here:Satis is not an adjective (if it were, it would agree with a noun instead of taking a partitive genitive).
They all have it as a noun, except this one, where it might look like an adjective but I think it's rather adverbial: “ipse Romam venirem, si satis consilium quādam de re haberem,”Though the heading is for satis as an adjective, many of the examples within this entry seem to have satis as an adverb
Yes, it becomes clearer. Thank you.Satis may have been an adjective at some point (since we have a comparative form satius...) but practically speaking, by the time of classical Latin and even before it was no longer used as an adjective, only as either a noun or an adverb.
I think some people like to analyse satis in predicative use (as in hoc satis est, "this is enough") as an adjective, but it seems lame to me. Why would it be an adjective here and suddenly become a noun in contexts like satis pecuniae, "enough money"? It makes more sense to take it as a substantive in both cases.