While it's true that it's "standard" for the adjective to follow the noun, Latin word order is VERY flexible, and a noun following an adjective is not at all unusual. A quick search of the corpus at http://latin.packhum.org/search reveals that both appear more or less equally.
I suspect that your friend misremembered the phrase.
Concerning the actual phrase that Julius Caesar said, the biographers offer conflicting evidence. Suetonius tells us that Caesar died in silence, though he admits the tradition that Caesar said in Greek: "καὶ σὺ τέκνον;" Cassius Dio echoes Suetonius, claiming that the "truest account" ...
Yes, dies mirabilis is perfectly valid!
You can use the adjective mirabilis with any noun.
You have to use the correct form, but that is fortunately easy.
In masculine and feminine it's mirabilis, in neuter it's mirabile.
Some words are plural (e.g. Kalendae, the first day of a month), and those require plural forms mirabiles/mirabilia.
If you find a word ...
Two key mechanisms of disambiguation come to mind:
Using hic (latter) and ille (former) is one way. Simple example: "A and B meet. The former eats, the latter drinks." — A et B conveniunt. Ille est, hic bibit.
The pronoun se/suus usually refers to the subject of the sentence. Simple example: "B wrote a book. A compares his own book with B's." — ...
I suspect that any reply to this broad a question will always be rife with conjecture, but the reason for the convoluted word order is always a combination of the metrical cadence, and the effect that word order has on the listener. It is generally accepted that literature was usually read aloud in ancient Rome - we can even assume that lyrical poetry was (...
I think you're still assuming that English-style word order is in some sense natural or default, despite your correct disclaimer that "sentences that appear 'scrambled' in English might not be perceived to be so in Latin". For example, you refer to "moving unam all the way to the end", but of course it hasn't been moved anywhere; its ...
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 ...
I am not aware of a possibility of passivizing such a structure.
Instead, I suggest two ways around this:
Use a different verb.
Depending on context, perhaps comitare, haerere, or insistere could replace sequi.
With a non-deponent verb you can form passives as usual.
Use a pronoun meaning "someone".
Although aliquis me sequitur might not be ...
It should indeed be Brute, not Brutus, and the vocative form seems to be far more common if you make an internet search.
The person who told that the last words came with Brutus appears to be slightly misinformed, perhaps due to knowing that the name is Brutus but being unaware of the Latin vocative case.
The nominative Brutus would make sense if it was the ...
Simple and sweet:
Heroes numquam oblitterabuntur.
If I had to guess, I would say the idea behind the claim is that oblivisci (to forget) is a deponent verb and has no (semantically) passive forms, so naively, if one wanted to say “to be forgotten” in Latin and only knew that verb, one would be a bit stumped. Oblitterare does not mean “forget,” it means “to ...
There is agreement, in fact! Both of these words are masculine genitive singular.
The trick is that poēta is a masculine noun, despite being in the first declension. So the genitive singular is -ae, just like puellae. But agreement depends on gender, not declension, so it takes the masculine -ī, just like puerī.
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. ...
I'd say you want the present tense. A&G 466, "Present with iam diu etc.":
The Present with expressions of duration of time (especially iam diu, iam dudum) denotes an action continuing in the present, but begun in the past... In this use the present is commonly to be rendered by the perfect in English
They give examples such as annum iam audis ...
Spevak 2010 writes that the most frequent pattern is Subject Predicative.Noun sum (in Cicero, it's 57%), as opposed to Predicative.Noun Subject sum (3%).
However, since other orderings are possible (see the table below), and
there is no special way to mark the difference between the subject and predicative noun in Latin (both are in Nominativus), context ...
I think I understand the root of your confusion, and the simple answer to your question:
Why don't both sides of the quam agree?
Is this: They do agree.
I am more like you than he.
A first point is that similis usually takes the genitive (though it can also take the dative), e.g. "similis eius" = "similar to him." When in doubt with quam, you can ...
In Hebrew, we often find the verb הָיָה (hāyâ) followed by the preposition ל prefixed to a noun used to indicate that something was made into something (i.q. Latin est factum quiddam in quiddam).
On the verb הָיָה, Heinrich Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius wrote,1
For example, in Gen. 2:7, it is written: וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה (wayhî hāʾādām lĕnepeš ...
My first instinct was that this is, at the very least, not common in classical Latin, and should only happen with participles that are basically adjectives and have lost some of their verbal semantics, like sapiens or patiens. The reason I think that, is that a present participle is perfectly capable of standing on its own in Latin, it doesn't need an actual ...
I found an Oxford doctoral dissertation, Modes of Reporting Speech in Latin Fictional Narrative (Laird 1992) (PDF) that includes an extensive discussion of direct and indirect speech in the first two centuries of Latin literature. It is quite large and does a wonderful job of explaining the ambiguities inherent in this kind of classification, such as the ...
Manibus coniunctis makes me think of holding one's hands together in prayer. I'd translate this as "manibus nexis". See location 745 in Metamorphoses by Ovid. There it is used in the context of holding hands dancing around a tree.
Stop trying to classify all subordinate clauses.
Subordinate clauses with cum can express a number of different things, and they often overlap.
Reason, circumstance, and time are very closely related, and drawing boundaries between them is artificial.
Do you think a Roman would have classified, consciously or not, your first example in a specific ...
If Latin prose had an "extremely loose word order", which is (generally) not the case, the appropriate linguistic term involved would be "non-configurationality". However, rather than being vaguely classified as a free word order language or as a non-configurational language, Latin has been referred to in the recent literature on Latin syntax as a "discourse ...
What follows is not an answer but just some initial thoughts related to your question. My first impression/intuition is like the one you express at the end of your post. I'd be surprised to find examples that follow the specific schema you suggest (i.e., "non AA sed AA") in a classical author like Cicero. However, I must also say that I would be less ...
The Latin is a pretty literal translation of the Greek:
καὶ κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας
"τῆς βασιλείας" (tēs basileias) is genitive, not dative. He is preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, not preaching the Gospel to the kingdom.
This makes sense. The "kingdom" in question--as is clear from many other passages throughout the New ...
Sure. Collige, virgo, rosas means "gather roses, maiden", collige rosas means "gather roses".
Collige is the active 2nd person singular present imperative of colligo 'to gather'.
Rosas is the accusative plural of rosa 'rose'; accusative because it's the direct object of collige.
Virgo is the vocative singular of virgo 'maiden'; vocative ...
The direct object of an active sentence is typically in accusative, an indirect one in dative.
An object in an active sentence is never nominative.
The verb esse (to be) is active but does not take an object.
When you say that something is something, aliquid aliquid est, both nouns are in nominative.
Marcus dux est. (Marcus is the leader.)
That works fine. The Romans might have done it in a different order:
Homo sum, ero deus.
You could also say
Homo sum, deus futurus.
This would be roughly "I am a man [who] is to be a god."
Yet another way to do this would be
Homo sum, fiam deus.
Which means "I am a man, I will become a god."
By the way, there's a great story about the emperor ...
Your syntax is correct.
You can combine as many genitives as you wish in a similar fashion.
For choosing between et and -que, see the question about that choice.
I think et is more appropriate here.
To improve your translation, I would put est all the way at the end: Minerva dea sapientiae et lanae est.
Besides being more natural word order in Latin, it ...
I like @TomCotton's suggestion, but I thought I would add to it by providing some other options in Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary.
I think, first of all, that quaestio is not a good translation of English question. If you look through the Lewis & Short entry for quaestio, the word has a technical legal meaning and is also used to ...
There are a lot of Hebraisms in Latin and Greek translations of the Old Testament, and I'm guessing this is one of them.
The Hebrew reads (diacritics omitted) we-haya Yisrael le-mashal u-le-shnina be-khol ha-`amim, literally "and Israel will be to/for a proverb and to/for a story in all the nations". The Latin in seems to be an over-literal translation of ...
Negative future imperatives do indeed exist.
A great many can be found in the laws of twelve tables.
Hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito
Do not bury a dead person in the city
Judging by these examples, the syntax is simply ne + future imperative.
I am not sure if memento should be semantically treated as a future imperative.
It is a future ...