In Hans Oerberg's book Familia Romana you can find this sentence: īnfrā pulmōnēs est iecur et venter (Ch. XI; lines 20-21) - shouldn't it say "sunt iecur et venter". We have two subjects in the sentence so why is there the verb in singular?


Because there isn't really a rule in Latin that says that the verb must necessarily be plural if there are multiple subjects (even if Allen & Greenough give precisely such a rule).

Now that is generally true if the subjects are all persons, so you have your Marcus et Cornelia mortui sunt (but: neque Marcus neque Cornelia mortua est). But if not, then the predicate verb usually agrees with the closest subject:

In periculo castra et legiones et imperator erat. (Caes. BG 2,26,5)
Populi provinciaeque liberatae sunt. (Cic. Phil. 5,12)

There are many exceptions. In particular, multiple thing-subjects of different genders are sometimes seen with a neutral plural predicate, so my understanding is that infra pulmones sunt iecur et venter would also have been correct.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.