Usage of the adverb "intus".

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
Does the adverb intus take a referent in the ablative, or should one use the accusative? For example, which is more grammatical of: Aquā intus exsistit or Aquam intus exsistit to mean "There is water within"? Thanks in advance.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
"Water" there is the subject, so it should be in the nominative. If you had meant "within the water", then you could have said intus in aquā. It also occasionally occurs with the bare ablative (without in).
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
Ah yes, of course! I should have realized the nominative was called for. My confusion about that derives from the discussion of adverbial derivation in A&G where is stated: "Those (adverbs, including intus) in -tus (usually preceded by i), with an ablative meaning."
It also occasionally occurs with the bare ablative (without in).
Egads! Don't return me to the terrible land of bare ablatives, where I have died! :crucified:

Please, one more question if I may. If I wanted to say "there is an overabundance of water within", then: nimium aqua intus exsistit (aqua in the nominative)?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
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").
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
If I wanted to say "there is an overabundance of water within", then: nimium aqua intus exsistit (aqua in the nominative)?
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").
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?
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
No, nimis works just like nimium.

You could use the adjective version of nimium (nimius, a, um) and say nimia aqua.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
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.
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
Why not est?
I asked that myself too, then I've read on the dictionary that "existere" means "to gush/ spurt/ spout".
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.
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...
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Est is very often used to mean "there is".
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
But, intus is qualifying est (or exsistit in my original)
In the original, yes; but in "an excess of water within is _____________", "within" looks like it's modifying "water" (or possibly "excess").
adjectival satis
Satis is not an adjective (if it were, it would agree with a noun instead of taking a partitive genitive).
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
Satis is not an adjective (if it were, it would agree with a noun instead of taking a partitive genitive).
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:


I. Posit.
1. Adject., enough, sufficient, satisfactory.
a. Form sătis : “quod (faenum et pabulum) bubus satis siet, qui illic sient,” Cato, R. R. 137: cui, si conjuret populus, vix totu' satis sit, were enough, adequate, Lucil. ap. Charis. p. 193 P.: libram aiebant satis esse ambobus farris Intritae, Titin. ap. Non. 81, 13; Hor. S. 1, 5, 68: “duo talenta pro re nostrā ego esse decrevi satis,” Ter. Heaut. 5, 1, 67; id. Ad. 5, 3, 24: “dies mihi hic ut sit satis vereor Ad agendum,” id. And. 4, 2, 22; cf. Liv. 21, 17: “quicquid adjecissent ipsi terroris satis ad perniciem fore rati,” id. 21, 33; cf. Quint. 12, 11, 19: “animo satis haec vestigia parva sagaci Sunt, per quae possis cognoscere cetera tute,” Lucr. 1, 402: “satis est tibi in te, satis in legibus, satis in mediocribus amicitiis praesidium,” Cic. Fin. 2, 26, 84: “ut semper vobis auxilium adversus inimicos satis sit,” Liv. 6, 18: “satis esse Italiae unum consulem censebat,” id. 34, 43; Cic. Planc. 38, 92; cf.: “ipse Romam venirem, si satis consilium quādam de re haberem,” id. Att. 12, 50: “id modo si mercedis Datur mihi... satis Mihi esse ducam,” will content myself, Plaut. Am. 2, 2, 16: “satis hoc tibi est,” Ter. Eun. 4, 7, 40: “animo istuc satis est, auribus non satis,” Cic. Or. 63, 215: “dicebant de re publicā quod esset illis viris et consulari dignitati satis,” id. Brut. 35, 135; hence, in a play on the word: Le. Jam satis est mihi. Li. Tum igitur tu dives es factus? Plaut. As. 2, 2, 64: “quidvis satis est, dum vivat modo,” Ter. Heaut. 4, 1, 28; id. Hec. 5, 2, 17: “qui non sentirent, quid esset satis,” Cic. Or. 22, 73: “sum avidior etiam, quam satis est, gloriae,” id. Fam. 9, 14, 2: “plus quam satis doleo,” Cic. Verr. 2, 5, 46, § 123: “semel fugiendi si data est occasio, Satis est,” Plaut. Capt. 1, 2, 9: “satis esse deberet, si, etc.,” Cic. de Or. 2, 41, 174: “satin' habes, si feminarum nulla'st, quam aeque diligam?” Plaut. Am. 1, 3, 11: “ars satis praestat, si, etc.,” Quint. 7, 10, 15: “non satis efficit oratio, si, etc.,” id. 8, 3, 62: “satis superque est,” Plaut. Am. 1, 1, 14: “poenas dedit usque superque Quam satis est,” Hor. S. 1, 2, 66: “satis superque habere dicit, quod sibi ab arbitrio tribuatur,” Cic. Rosc. Com. 4, 11: “tanta repente caelo missa vis aquae, ut ea modo exercitui satis superque foret,” Sall. J. 75, 7; cf.: “satis una excidia,” Verg. A. 2, 642 (v. infra, γ and 2. β); cf.: “plura quam satis est,” Hor. Ep. 1, 10, 46: “ultra quam satis est,” id. ib. 1, 6, 16.—

Though the heading is for satis as an adjective, many of the examples within this entry seem to have satis functioning as an adverb, so what does this section mean? It is a bit confusing to me, and I am unsure what "Posit." refers to in "Lewis-Short speak" (I think "positional", but in what context?).
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
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.
Though the heading is for satis as an adjective, many of the examples within this entry seem to have satis as an adverb
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,”
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
Now, I have found this:


where it says:
satis: Satis ("enough") does not function as an adjective in Latin, but as a noun, and therefore, does not agree with a noun, as the English adjective enough does, e.g. enough money. Instead, Latin uses the genitive case after satis to complete its meaning, e.g. satis pecuniae, "enough (of) money." This type of genitive is called a partitive genitive, another important use of this case in Latin. Like nihil (Chapter 4), satis is indeclinable.

...which leaves me more confused!
 

Michael Zwingli

Active Member
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.
Yes, it becomes clearer. Thank you.
 
Top