The expression esse est percipi is grammatical.
Notice that the gerund does not have a nominative form at all.
If you want the corresponding nominative (or accusative when there is no preposition), you need to use infinitive.
The grammatical structure is the same as in giraffa est alta ("the giraffe is tall").
You are simply saying that something is ...
First person singular (laudo) appears to be most common
Marcus Terentius Varro (116-27 BC) wrote De Lingua Latina, which survives in partial, corrupted form, but which provides valuable testimony on this matter.
In Book 6, chapter 5, he speaks of "derived words" and uses the first-person present active indicative form as the "basic form":
In Latin, the infinitive is not used to introduce a reason, or "purpose clause" as a Latin grammar would put it. Here are some other options, which I will gear toward the (very broad) use case of English translations using the infinitive with a sense of purpose.
Ut + Subjunctive
ut means "that, in order that" and introduces a subordinate purpose clause. ...
Cogito ergo sum does not mean "seeing is believing". It in fact means "I think therefore I am." Decartes used it as a statement of epistemology: If he can think, if he can conjure up rational process, it follows that he must exist. It establishes the I.
In Latin, there is no nominative of the gerund. What that means is that you'll never see a gerund as the ...
The answer above is pretty comprehensive! I don't yet have the reputation points to make this into a comment, rather than a full answer, but there are a few things worth adding.
First, In the case of Aliquid boni edendum volo — I think the most literal translation would be: "I desire something of good having-to-be-eaten." boni is then a partitive genitive. ...
Where did you read that the constituents of an articular infinitive need to be between the article and the infinitive? I would say they need to belong to the infinitive and be subordinate to it (and not to something else), but their location is no more limited than the modifiers of other nouns (i.e. than the elements of other noun groups). Otherwise, this ...
Verbi infinitivi nomina sunt
I started to "get" infinitives when I understood that they're nouns. It's called an infinitive because it's not "bound", i.e. tied to, a time—hence it doesn't make a claim, which is what verbs do. Instead, the infinitive carries the meaning of a verb abstractly. It's a name for that meaning—in other words, a nomen, a noun.
You need the subordinate idea ('to resist to the death') to be cast into the future (because the confederates didn't bind themselves to have resisted earlier or to be resisting right now). Normally, you'd say obstrinxerunt se usque ad mortem xxxuros esse, where xxx is the (stem of the) future active participle of the verb resistere. However, resistere is one ...
Are you familiar with accusativus cum infinitivo (ACI)?
All of the bolded infinitives in your quote belong to an ACI structure, and should not be treated in isolation from other parts of the structure.
As the name suggests, ACI comes with an accusative and an infinitive.
In English it is often best translated as a subordinate clause starting with "that", ...
The articular infinitive can be used as a dative of means, e.g. (from Smyth sec. 2033):
οὐδενὶ τῶν πάντων πλέον κεκράτηκε Φίλιππος ἢ τῷ πρότερος πρὸς τοῖς πράγμασι γίγνεσθαι Philip has conquered us by nothing so much as by being beforehand in his operations (Demosthenes 8.11)
That said, it would be simpler and more natural in your sentence to instead use ...
To expand on Joonas's answer, I think he is 100% correct that mirata is elliptical; est is left out but must be assumed in order to translate the sentence. The structure is as follows:
Iuno despexit in Argos
et mirata [est] nebulas volucres fecisse faciem noctis
nec sensit [nebulas] remitti tellure
We have three parallel main clauses here, ...
(Edited drastically from previous version after several rereadings of the passage.)
Mirata means mirata est.
It is not a plain participle, but a perfect form of a deponent verb.
It governs an ACI, whose infinitive is fecisse.
(And even if you read mirata as a plain participle, it can still govern an ACI.)
The next clause also has ACI: non esse nec remitti ...
As the point of departure for this question was the English phrase “I came here to eat”, it might be worth mentioning that in this construction “to eat” is not (at least historically) an infinitive, but the preposition “to” with the Old English dative of a verbal noun. Structurally it is thus more like Latin “ad edendum” (preposition plus accusative gerund).
Although your proposed translation, as amended in the previous answer, is grammatical (though certainly eyebrow-raising!), I would like to approach your question from an angle that might be more appropriate: How did Thomas Aquinas express this thought?
Fr. David Burrell's translation uses one verb ("to be") to express two ideas, and succeeds I believe. ...
Accusativum cum infinitivo triggered by sequitur, though the accusative has been ellipsed: 'it follows that it has...'
This use falls under definition 7 of sequor in the Oxford Latin Dictionary:
7 To follow from (a premiss), follow logically.
(w. acc. and inf.) nec si omne enuntiatum aut uerum aut falsum est, ~quitur ilico esse causas ...
There is no limit to how many infinitives you can have in a sentence.
Of course, it will become silly after some amount, but having two infinitives does not make your translation wrong or bizarre.
Consider this artificial example:
Credo te velle me potuisse intelligere rem ita fuisse.
I believe that you want me to have understood that the thing was so.
Allen & Greenough §343 also lists it as a type of possessive genitive, giving a few examples. Note that this use of the genitive in the predicate is used with infinitives and with clauses:
c. An infinitive or a clause, when used as a noun, is often limited by a genitive in the predicate:—
neque suī iūdicī [erat] discernere (B. C. 1.35), ...
Yes; when the nominative servus can be construed as the subject of videtur, (or dicitur, cognoscitur )
The slave seems to be carrying a letter.
The slave is seen to be carrying the letter.
'It seems that the slave is carrying the letter.' is Nominative and infinitive.
I don't think you are overlooking any grammatical point that could decide one way or the other; these types of constructions are inherently ambiguous. I think one might give some weight to the word order - a pronoun preceding the infinitive might tend to weigh in favour of its being the subject, and of course the converse, but that would not be definitive.
Colin Fine's comment hit it on the head:
I think it's syncretism - historically different forms being reanalysed as playing the same role (like several historically different past forms being levelled out as the "perfect" in Latin).
Latin, historically, had three different ways of forming the present passive infinitive:
A suffix -(r)ier, cognate with ...
According to Vine's "The Morphology of Italic", all the infinitive endings originated with the third/consonant conjugation, and were extrapolated from there.
Many consonant-stem verbs in Latin used to share a root with an S-stem noun: in other words, the verb was formed by putting (thematic) verb endings directly on the PIE root, and the noun was formed ...
Yes, there is a passive infinitive.
If something can be loved, seen, pulled, or heard, you can say amari/videri/trahi/audiri potest.
In the first, second, and third conjugation you just replace the final -e of the active infinitive with -ī.
In the third conjugation you replace -ere with -ī.
I interpreted your question to mean that you wanted a ...
Here are some comments:
1a: The infinitive cannot express purpose in Latin like it can in English. See this earlier question, for example.
1h&i: The rules of consecutio temporum require that a conjunctive subordinate to present or future verb is present or perfect, and one subordinate to any of the past tenses is imperfect or pluperfect. Because "he has ...
The origin of primum non nocere sheds some lights to its meaning.
Wikipedia gives a somewhat detailed story with reasonable-looking sources.
In short, the idea is ancient but the exact phrasing is quite new.
The Latin phrase primum non nocere seems to have been introduced in the 19th century.
The idea is that it is only the second law of medicine to do good,...
To construct the English phrase, you first introduce a new noun 'to-be'.
Then you take the (grammatical) expression "to be X is to be Y".
You can verify with different choices of X and Y that this is a grammatically sensible phrase — semantic sensibility depends on the choice.
For example, take X = "an artist" and Y = "free" or X = "a human" and Y = "...
After talking to another classicist, I can offer some thoughts, though sadly without definitive sources.
It seems unlikely that the two are related, for various reasons:
Contracted perfects are extremely rare with the syncopated ending: amārunt and amāvere are both possible for the third person plural perfect, but *amāre generally isn't. Historically, the ...
Your translation is quite good!
Concerning the phrase in question, here are a few clarifications:
it's quite clear that τὰ goes with δέοντα. Using the neuter article with a participle is pretty much the same as using it with an adjective:
τὰ ἀγαθά = "good things"
τὰ δέοντα = "things required"
One common meaning of πρὸς is "in relation to." In this case,...
Is this predicative genitive + esse?
"est boni imperatoris bene ducere" = "It is of a good general to lead well.";
"est digni civis patriae cogitare" = "it is of a worthy citizen to think about his country.";
"est honesti regis regere sapienter" = "It is of an honourable king to rule wisely.";
"est canis feles agitare" = "It is of a dog to chase cats."