How can anyone not love a book that teaches like this (as opposed to the genitive of rubric and sphere)?
‘Canis herbam n?n ēst, neque p?stor herbam ēst. Cibus p?st?ris est p?nis, quī inest in sacc?. Iūlius p?st?rī su? cibum dat. P?stor canī su? cibum dat: canis ? p?st?re cibum accipit. Itaque canis p?st?rem amat’
I will pay a dear academic price for spending this weekend on Latin instead of dogwork. So be it; the animals come next! (pinche doble sentido que ni esperaba) I’m tired and should go to bed.
I remember that chapter pretty well. In fact, I know exactly where I was when I read it: still drowsy after sleeping in late, recumbens in lecto, as comfortable as could be at a friend’s house, on break, reading Latin.
-David
PS - On behalf of the genitive of rubric and sphere, the term would go nicely in goofy science fiction: “Sir! Is that the Genitive of Rubric and Sphere on the viewscreen!?” “By the Fiends of Passive Periphrasis…! All shields up, and move to red alert!”
before correcting me about direct objects, you might want to think about what you are saying. is herbam receiving the action of eating or is it merely affected by the action? when you have come to your senses you will realise that est can NOT have a direct object because a canis can not eat HERBAM.
but by making herbam the direct object you are implying that he COULD eat it but does not want to. but canis can NOT eat herbam. its better to just leave herbam out or else put it in to a more appropriate case!
Fierywrath, you are confusing me here. You start out by saying that “est” cannot have a direct object. That is true. But then you seem to ignore the fact that you misread the post and didn’t notice the macron over the “e”, which makes that particular verb not a “to be” verb, but the verb “eats”.
You go on to argue about what dogs can/can’t eat.
Can you please clarify what your original point was, because it got “lost in translation” - no pun intended (I think).
If I followed this thread correctly, fierywrath missed the macron on the e. When Lucus pointed this out, he realized he had lost the war but resolved to win the battle, if possible. The rest of the argument, I think, was facetious.
