Latin Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, teachers, and students wanting to discuss the finer points of the Latin language. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Salvete omnes, doctissimi amici et amicae, a question rose from Orberg LLPSI I, where it says: "Iam et Marcus et Quintus mala habent."
Why would he use the accusativus pluralis of malum when et...et means both...and, in which case there is a separation as in 'each individually'? I am arguing that it should be "Iam et M. et Q. malum habent".
svbeev
Iam et Marcus et Quintus mala habent.
A comment by TKR pointed out that in addition to the question of whether "malum" should be used as a distributive singular, there's also the question of what the number of the verb should be.
According to Harm Pinkster (The Oxford Latin Syntax), an emphatic coordination (et...et) usually involves the verb agreeing in number with the nearest subject (so being singular if the nearest subject is singular).
For example: et proavus et avus praetor fuit, "both the great-grandfather and the grandfather were praetors" (literally "was a praetor").
Pinkster mentions that there are "also instances" where writers use a plural verb though, as they normally would for a straightforward "et" coordinated subject.
The two individuals, Marcus and Quintus have apples, the et... et signifies the both... and as you stated. The reason the māla is plural, is because there is more than one apple between the two of them. If you said Mārcus et Quīntus mālum habent it would imply that between both of them, there is only one apple. Perhaps a better rendering would be et Mārcus et Quīntus II māla habent (Marcus and Quintus have two apples) or Mārcus mālum habet, et Quīntus quoque (Marcus has an apple, Quintus does too).
