Talk:Latin grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lots of original research on this page

Stuff like "Latin has six declensions" and too many examples to count of mnemonic devices one teacher came up with somewhere being included as universal rules smack of OR. I understand that it's quirky that "3rd i-stem" is not considered a separate declension, but it isn't. Such weird deviations from the way every Latin textbook on Earth states things to be don't belong here when uncited. DarthSquidward (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the page is just confused between declensions and cases. (I fear to look at the Latin declension page...) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noun cases

It appears to me that Latin has a bunch of "noun classes". What makes gender a salient attribute apart from the various declensions? Declension and gender seem to be very intertwined - how can I understand them better? — Hippietrail 14:53, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

with a short list of exceptions (agricola, nauta, come to mind) all 1st declension nouns are feminine. so just tell yourself, all words that end -a, -ae are feminine. that's a good rule (but keep in mind the exceptions). then all words that end in -us, ī are masculine (i don't think there are any exceptions to this one), all words that end -um, -ī are neuter (also no exceptions). with third declension nouns, there is no way of guessing the gender, you must simply learn it with the word. 4th declension words are usually masculine, but some are neuter, and they have to be learnt with the word as well, and 5th declension (-ēs, -eī) is usually feminine.
As for first declension nouns that are masculine, many first declension masculines denote "male" occupations--pirata [pirate], poeta [poet], agricola [farmer], incola [inhabitant--this word can also be feminine if the person happens to be a female], nauta [sailor], auriga [chariot driver] and so on. In general, with no exceptions I can think of right now, all nouns that denote people have natural gender (i.e., males are masculine, females are feminine). Consequently, Roman names of men that are first declension are also masculine. There are many of these: Dolabella, Sulla, Catalina, and so on.
There are actually quite a few second declension nouns ending in -us that are feminine. These include some plants, gems, islands, and countries: fagus [beech], ulmus [elm], Aegyptus [Egypt], sapphirus [sapphire], and even some words like arctus [bear--borrowed from the Greek].
so yes, for 3 of the 5 declensions, the declension is intertwined with the gender. I hope that helps. If it is still unclear, ask some more questions -Lethe 01:25, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
So what qualities of a word give it its gender and what qualities give it its declension? Is it the way adjectives and demonstratives decline in agreement with the nouns? Is it what was written in the oldest Latin grammars? Thanks for your answers so far. — Hippietrail 08:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I think the gender and declension of a word are just intrinsic properties of a noun, just as much as the meaning of the word is an intrinsic property. I don't think that the way adjectives agree with the noun determine the gender, rather i think it is the other way around: the gender determines how the adjectives agree with the noun. And the declension of the noun has no effect on modifying adjectives whatsoever. I don't think written grammars determine the language either, but rather that all indo-europeans have (or at least, had at some point) grammatical gender. Every word in Latin inherited its gender from some word in the parent language, proto-Indo-european. any new words in the Latin language would then be assigned a gender and declension based on some pattern like the ones mentioned above. You might want to read grammatical gender for some more explanations of genders. I hope this helps. Lethe
Do note that not all experts agree on the original gender system of Proto-Indo-European. Some experts who study Hittite which has some relation with Proto-Indo-European believe that the original gender distinction was between animate and inanimate gender.
My high school latin teacher would sometimes tell us how certain words had very feminine or maternal imagery associated with them, such as the meaning of "boat" (carrying a person) being comparable to that of a pregnant woman. My latin's so rusty though that I can't elaborate on the subject further, and also, my latin teacher was a bit kooky. ✈ James C. 03:27, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
I know this is a late response, but I couldn't resist. We should not forget that words in English are also feminine, masculine or neuter. This is also the case in Dutch, my first language. Why we don't learn that anymore is because Latin is a gender-centered language; the adjectives agree with the gender of the noun. (Femina bona, res bona, agricola bonus, dominus bonus). This is why it is important we learn the genders of Latin words.

In English every noun gets the same adjective. A good woman, a good thing, a good farmer, a good lord.

So what words are feminine, what masculine and what neuter? Words that end with -a are feminine, with the exception or words that point to a man, like agricola. Words that end with -us are masculine, with the exception of I think one or two, and many words from the 4th declination, which is a long -us as opposed to the short -us of the first declination. An example is the feminine manus, which means hand. And neuter...well all the other words, lol!

There are also two gendered words like dies (day), from the 5th declination. If the author speaks about one particular day (Dies haec), dies is often feminine. If the other does not (Dies pulchri (plural)), dies is often masculine.

[edit] Second Declension Neuter Endings:

singular plural
Nominative um a
Genitive ī ōrum
Dative ō īs
Accusative um a
Ablative ō īs

[edit] Third Declension Neuter Endings

singular plural
Nominative _____* a
Genitive is um
Dative i ibus
Accusative _____* a
Ablative e ibus
  • - The nominative and accusative forms of a neuter word are always the same. In the third declension the nominative is unique, and in a third neuter word the accusative is always the same as the nominative (for a few execptions).

The nominative and accusative are the same in every neuter word, singular and plural.

[edit] Locative Endings

singular plural
1st Decl. ae īs
2nd Decl. ī īs
3rd Decl. ī (e) ibus

I dont know a whole lot about the locative but I know the endings. When it is used, it is instead of using Ablative Place Where only with: Names of Cities, Towns, Domus (noun for home) and Rūs (country, opposite of city). When it is used ALL prepositions are omitted.


Do any of you think that a section about the locative should be put in like there are sections about the other cases? I have a book with all of this grammar stuff in it and I could type a few pages of it up during my midterms next week. I'm in high school and my midterms will be easy except for Latin because we have to memorize like 600 lines, its AP Latin Vergil. Sigh... BenWhitey 01:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misprint

There is a misprint in the first declension. "puella" has the form "puella" in ablative singular.

Roosen

Thanks! You could have fixed it yourself, by the way - just click "edit" like you on this page. Adam Bishop 06:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whoa! That mistake wasn't in there when I added the table! -Lethe | Talk 16:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
No, it was added a few days ago by an anon, along with bolding the endings...seems to have been an accident. Adam Bishop 17:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh I see. This is the same person who added the sentence about the vocative. Well thanks for fixing it. -Lethe | Talk

Is anybody still active in here? Is there a group of interested parties?

Interested in what? Adam Bishop 02:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for cleaning up

Thank you Adam Bishop and Lucius for cleaning up the mess.Philx 12:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)PhilxPhilx 12:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Merge this with Latin conjugation and Latin declension?

We should merge the Latin grammar page into the Latin declension and Latin conjugation page. Most of the elements which are in the grammar page are already on the other two; namely, the charts. Or, just remove the grammar page all together, and focus on the grammar of nouns and verbs on the subsequent other two pages. good, bad, mediocre idea? 01:37, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've suggested it. Does anyone disagree? My only concern is that this article is getting a bit long, but otherwise the conjugation and declension articles contain much of the same information (the conjugation article is more in-depth), just formatted differently.--Wasabe3543 07:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of grammatical topics that are not appropriate for the declension and conjugation pages, so a complete merger of this page is ill-advised. As far as the charts being merged, yes, I agree with that. Tables of paradigms will make this article too long and distract from interesting discussion.-lethe talk 12:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose that we do the following. We should get rid of the declension, conjugation, and grammar pages in the form that they exist now. Then, make a page for each different Latin part of speech: adjectives, adverbs, nouns, verbs, interjections, etc. We then would create a main page on Latin grammar, explaining the general concepts. From the main Latin grammar page, we would link to the subsequent parts of speech pages, which would describe in finer detail the complexities of the language and include the conjugation/ declension charts. How's that sound? Christopher 00:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For example:

    A Complete Latin Grammar
    
    ==Verbs==
    
    link to main article on latin verbs (charts and fine details go on this page)
    
    latin verbs behave like... (general explanation here)
    
    ==Nouns==
    
    link to main article on latin nouns  (charts and fine details go on this page)
    
    latin nouns behave like... (general explanation here)
    
    ==Adjectives==
    
    link to main article on latin adjectives (charts and fine details go on this page)
    
    latin adjectives behave like... (general explanation go here)
    
    etc.

I'm not a fan of splitting up articles like that. I know there is precedent for it (like for French verbs or whatever), but I think it would be far more useful to have the information on one page. Adam Bishop 00:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer to have all of the information on a single page to avoid having to keep clicking links to see the two closely related pages. I do like the idea proposed by User Christopher Willis, though. Jds10912 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

We need more opinions on this Christopher 08:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


I think that we should probably put all of the Latin grammar stuff on the Latin Grammar page. Then we can brake it up into subsections with verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc. I think that the most useful parts of all the pages should be merged into one UBER-LATIN GRAMMAR page. BenWhitey 01:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to maintain two sets of grammatical tables that serve the same purpose. We should keep the tables in separate articles (like they are now) and provide more general elaboration on the main Latin grammar page.—Kbolino 03:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


I definetly think that they should be merged into the Grammar section. Conjugation of verbs and declension of nouns... It's impossible to have a discussion about Latin grammar without them. They belong under the same topic. Not only that, but, taking it a step further, I think the grammar section should be merged with the article Latin, putting literally everything on one page. GofG 00:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's how the page on Sanskrit appears. - Christopher 00:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Latin conjugation and Latin declension are too huge to merge, moreover the Latin grammar article is too big itself. Brandmeister 18:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It's so big because it's ridden with redundancy. -Christopher 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer them separate. I am trying to learn latin and tend to re-read these pages. Since they are separate, they should have slightly different angles of describing the same thing. --Jondel 07:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate! When I refer to it, I know what I need already! All the grammar articles should be broken out into major tabular sections. StrangerInParadise 09:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Keep these articles separate. Far too cumbersome to place these topics all on one page. Latin conjugations and declensions are certainly worthy of their own articles. I support placing summaries on this page and linking to the main page. Definately do not merge this page with the main Latin page! Mysterius 03:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they should stay seperate but they should definantly be linked to each other. Jesusfreak 01:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to have to quote The Offspring here, but "Keep 'em separated."--Jpbrenna 23:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that Latin conjugation and Latin declension (as well as Word order in Latin) should all be "merged" into Latin grammar. I like the idea of keeping everything on one page and just scrolling down to the topic I want to read (à la GMail, "don't throw anything away" and "search, don't sort" but still "keep it all in context".). Adding these articles to Latin grammar would create only a very small change in the size of the article, because most of what is stated in Latin conjugation and Latin declension is already stated in Latin grammar. It would not be "too cumbersome", as Mysterius says, in fact it would be less cumbersome than having three separate pages. Why have "summaries on this page [...] linking to the main page" (sorry Mysterius, no offense intended, just using your argument for the sake of rebutting :D ) when Latin declension could become a redirect to Latin grammar#Nouns, which would be more in depth and more informative because it would include information from both articles? As for Brandmeister, these articles are huge because they are basically just tables. Anyway, what is huge? Many of the featured articles are "huge". As for StrangerInParadise, they are broken into tables on this page, why put the tables somewhere else? This article could tell you all you need to know, just use the Table of Contents to go to the section that you want, that's what it's there for :P. Note: I completely understand that this is personal preference, I am not pushing my beliefs upon anyone. To resolve this issue, I suggest two things: a vote and a "pros and cons" table. I always had this idea but never got to use it. Check it out:

Merging Latin declension and Latin conjugation with Latin grammar
Pros Cons
  1. Greater fluidity between related topics
  2. Remove redundant articles
  3. Combining info creates greater depth in article
  4. Easy to find topic via Table of Contents
  1. Long page, may be difficult to find topic
  2. con
  3. con

Now anyone can fill in what they want. Also, I'll be the first to vote:

[edit] Vote for merge of Latin declension and Latin conjugation with Latin grammar

  • Support. See reasons listed above. J. Finkelstein 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would be far too long an article. People are perfectly capable of navigating between a couple of different pages Nomist 01:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. See reasons listed above. - Christopher 02:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too long! You'll tire out the reader.--Jondel 04:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The page Latin conjugation has become so large that merging that article has become impossible. It contains enough information to stand in its own right. Since merging has become impossible this vote is useless in any case. Shinobu 11:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per WP:SS. Also, I deleted an unsigned support because there's nothing even suggesting that it wasn't done by someone else who has already supported. UnDeadGoat 22:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this count as a consensus? Can we call this poll closed? UnDeadGoat 18:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Of course, I'm one the opposers, but I doubt the supporters will have a different opinion. Shinobu 05:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Right then. This vote counts as CLOSED and I'm deleting the little banner things. UnDeadGoat 23:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of book title?

Hello, I'm finishing up an article on the Spanish traveller García de Silva Figueroa and need an English translation of the title of his book Totius legationis suae et Indicarum rerum Persidisque commentarii. Can anyone tell me what this would be in English? Thanks! --Peripatetic 12:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "Commentaries of his whole mission and of Indian and Persian affairs"? Adam Bishop 17:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
That looks accurate to me! Cjcaesar

[edit] The Gerundive is NOT a Future Passive Participle!

The gerundive shows obligation, not futurity. It can be useful for people learning the language to identify the gerundive with the FPP, but it must be stressed that they are not the same thing. GenericGabriel 22:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not entirely true, since the gerundive is used to make the Passive periphrastic conjugation one can asume that it is a future passive participle 189.145.97.14 05:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is, Ea, Id

Could somebody please put in some tables for the pronouns 'is, ea, id', 'ille, illa, illud', and 'hic, haec, hoc', as well as of the relative pronound 'qui, quae, quod'? It just looks sort of disconnected from the rest of the article - since the rest of it is so comprehensive, the lack of in-depth text in one area makes the article look a bit patched up.


CASE M sing F sing N sing
nom. is ea id
gen. eius eius eius
dat. ei ei ei
acc. eum eam id
abl. eo ea eo
CASE M plur F plur N plur
nom. ii (ei) eae ea
gen. eorum earum eorum
dat. iis (eis) iis (eis) iis (eis)
acc. eos eas ea
abl. iis (eis) iis (eis) iis (eis)


CASE M sing F sing N sing
nom. ille illa illud
gen. illius illius illius
dat. illi illi illi
acc. illum illam illud
abl. illo illa illo
CASE M plur F plur N plur
nom. illi illae illa
gen. illorum illarum illorum
dat. illis illis illis
acc. illos illas illa
abl. illis illis illis


CASE M sing F sing N sing
nom. hic haec hoc
gen. huius huius huius
dat. huic huic huic
acc. hunc hanc hoc
abl. hoc hac hoc
CASE M plur F plur N plur
nom. hi hae haec
gen. horum harum horum
dat. his his his
acc. hos has haec
abl. his his his


CASE M sing F sing N sing
nom. iste ista istud
gen. istius istius istius
dat. isti isti isti
acc. istum istam istud
abl. isto ista istud
CASE M plur F plur N plur
nom. isti istae ista
gen. istorum istarum istorum
dat. istis istis istis
acc. istos istas ista
abl. istis istis istis


CASE M sing F sing N sing
nom. qui quae quod
gen. cuius cuius cuius
dat. cui cui cui
acc. quem quam quod
abl. quo qua quo
CASE M plur F plur N plur
nom. qui quae quae
gen. quorum quarum quorum
dat. quibus quibus quibus
acc. quos quas quae
abl. quibus quibus quibus


CASE M sing F sing N sing
nom. idem eadem idem
gen. eiusdem eiusdem eiusdem
dat. eidem eidem eidem
acc. eundem eandem idem
abl. eodem eadem eodem
CASE M plur F plur N plur
nom. iidem (eidem) eaedem eadem
gen. eorundem earundem eorundem
dat. iisdem (eisdem) iisdem (eisdem) iisdem (eisdem)
acc. eosdem easdem eadem
abl. iisdem (eisdem) iisdem (eisdem) iisdem (eisdem)


CASE M sing F sing N sing
nom. ipse ipsa ipsum
gen. ipsius ipsius ipsius
dat. ipsi ipsi ipsi
acc. ipsum ipsam ipsum
abl. ipso ipsa ipso
CASE M plur F plur N plur
nom. ipsi ipsae ipsa
gen. ipsorum ipsarum ipsorum
dat. ipsis ipsis ipsis
acc. ipsos ipsas ipsa
abl. ipsis ipsis ipsis

--Stefano 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin as a Spoken Language

I'm in high school in New Zealand, and I'm studying Latin. My Latin teacher is great, and he's poured into me an almost terrible enthusiasm of Latin (seeing as I would like to become an engineer). He is a great teacher, of both Latin and English literature, and though a lot of people say that Latin is a dead language, I'm sure there are some people out there with comparable or more skill than he is at Latin, and actually speak it fluently and often. Could you tell me what you think of Latin please? Thanks a lot.

The Roman Catholic church used Latin exclusively in its masses for a very long time until the 1960's when it was decided for them to deliver masses in the peoples' native tongues. However, there are still masses spoken entirely in Latin for the curious of us. I really don't think Latin is much of a spoken language beyond a few (mainly) academic circles. It's a great language to know if you're seeking to improve your English vocabulary, as about 60% of English words are derived from Latin. You can have alot of fun in the language with a friend; send messages to them in Latin, work together to translate things, et cetera. All I'll say about its practicality is that I would not list it as a second language on a job application. Mustang 18:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I most wholeheartedly would list it as an area of knowledge on a job application, though. One could make the case that Latin is the official language of the Vatican, but he or she wouldn't likely get anywhere with that. It's incredibly useful in terms of knowledge, although you aren't likely to find someone with whom to speak it. Having said that, I've found that if you know virtually no Italian, it's possible in Rome to get a basic message across by using Latin.
P.S. Keep up the Latin. ;) GenericGabriel 04:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Learning Latin will help you learn the Romance languages in no time. Plus, you will be able to read science articles in almost any Europe language if you learn Latin. Greek would also be good.Cameron Nedland 15:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Grammar, Declension, and Conjugation still have a lot of redundant information

Each page to a certain degree overlaps with the other. How can we organize each page so that they each will cover their own separate topics? Should Latin grammar focus on indo European influences on the Latin language? Nouns, adjectives, and adverbs are declined, so the declension page should focus on those. Likewise, verbs are conjugated, so the Conjugation page should focus on verbs. That leaves the Grammar page. What should that focus on, if nouns and verbs are already covered? All of it as of now is terrible unorganized and redundant. Is there any reason why we shouldn't combine all three pages? It seems like that would simplify a great deal of information. Suggestions? - Christopher 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On my update

First of all, I removed all the charts, which over the next few days, I'll add properly to the declension and conjugation pages. I think charts say a lot more than paragraphs when trying to describe cases and conjugations. They're easier for the eyes, and easier to interpret. The fact that vocative endings are similar to nominative is easier to discern from a chart than from something written out; e.g. from the previous version:

This generally looks exactly like Nominative, except in second declension masculine nouns ending in "us" where the "us" is turned to an "e", and second declension masculine nouns ending in "ius", where the "ius" is turned into "ī". E.g., "servus" becomes "serve", and "filius" becomes "filī"

The specifics should be discussed on the declension page.

I've tried to reduce the amount of redundant information and clarify many of the topics discussed. I expanded the opening into a paragraph, as well as many of the sections. I added a section on adverbs. I incorporated the both the page on word order and the ablative absolute because I felt they were too small to merit a page of their own. I modified them both slightly for clarity.

I removed the section on Latin sentence construction and rules of subordination because it focused on was word order, which I felt that through the examples above, it's pretty obvious that there's a variable word order in Latin.

I still think the page remains in an unfinished state and I'm sure that it's still missing some more detailed information, but on the whole, it's looking pretty good. Suggestions, comments? - Christopher 07:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for experts

I recently encountered a sentence (don't have the exact sentence with me now) with the following structure:

Name (of person) explicavit, et Name2, et Name3 et Name4 et Name5 plural-verb....

A translator grouped it like this: Name1 and Name2 explained, and Name3, Name4, etc. ....

Would it be more appropriate to translate the first verb in the singular and handle the first et as "as did Name2"? Or is it a common enough construction to turn the singular verb into plural with the et? The author is 5th century. Thanks! Zeusnoos 14:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to tell if we don't have the whole sentence. Do you know who the author was? Was the plural verb also a form of explicare? Presumably the first guy explained something, and the other people agreed with him later. Adam Bishop 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Omnia emin, quae Name1 explicavit et Name2 et quae Name3, Name4 et Name5 ediderunt, [et] ceterique omnes huius artis scii. Zeusnoos 21:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...well are you sure that is the whole sentence? I found this on Google: "Omnia enim quae Aesculapio Mercurius et Anubis (?) tradiderunt, quae Petosiris explicavit et Nechepso, et quae Abram, Orpheus et Critodemus ediderunt ceterique omnes hujus artis scii ... perscripsimus", from a book about Greek astrology. I would say that means "We reported everything which Mercury and Anubis told to Aesculapius, and which Petosiris explained to Nechepso, and which Abram, Orpheus and Critodemus, and all others skilled in this art, taught." The "quae Petosiris explicavit et Nechepso" bit is a little strange but everything seems to match. Adam Bishop 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I find your suggested translation of making the second person dative interesting - I wanted to do that, but the et was in the way (I wonder if it was added by a transcriber or editor). I deliberately left the names out to focus only on this segment of the sentence and to not introduce bias by how the names are historically grouped in other writers. If you are correct that P explains to N, then my hypothesis about these writers has more support. Thank you. Zeusnoos 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adjectives...pulcherior

Cornelia pulcherior puella est quam Flavia

Shouldn't that be pulchrior? Peter1968 17:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it is also somewhat irregular, so I put it with the irregular list, and switched it with fortis, which is what the example was using previously. Adam Bishop 18:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] where is this page headed

People are complaining about redundancy - well, I think a more comprehensive topic would include how Latin grammar evolved, especially in regard to its PIE roots. I'm rather curious since it only mentions PIE a few times. John Riemann Soong 21:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accents

I have been trying to learn latin from a number of different sources, and need to know, does latin feature any accents? Some pages show use of accents, some show none at all, and almost all show different accents. Which one is the true one? Elbbom 10:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean accents on letters or accents of speech? Latin does have pronounced accents, but they are normally weak compared to English ones. As for accents on letters, a horizontal line designates that a verb is long, but this is usually left out and instead is implied. Sometimes Latin texts show which syllable takes the accent (for instance, amâre). RedRabbit1983 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That?

How does one say, the king said that the youths had been very brave. Da G007 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In classical Latin this sentence does not have the word "that", they use a construction called "accusative infinitive". I would translate it as "Rex pueros fuisse fortiores dixit". Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Mostly right, but the superlative fortissimos should be used (fortiores means 'somewhat brave'), and iuvenes is better than 'pueros'. In vulgar and non-classical Latin in general (Christian, post-classical) it is possible to use conjunctions such as quod or even quia and quoniam. Iblardi (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)