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.
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." — ...
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 ...
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. ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
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.)
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. ...
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 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 ...
Filius, i means "son"
Liberi (masc. plur.) means "children" and more precisely children of free people, i.e. not slaves.
This family has 2 sons but 3 children. There probably is a daughter around somewhere.
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 ...
Yep, it's called the reflexive adjective, suus, -a, -um. It declines like an adjective and goes with the noun it's modifying.
Marcus reads a book. Marcus librum legit.
Marcus reads his [i.e. someone else's] book. Marcus eius librum legit.
Marcus reads his own book. Marcus suum librum legit.
For the full set of rules on reflexives, see Allen &...
If there is an implicit sit, it does not show uncertainty.
The conjunctive mood can show uncertainty, but it has other functions.
One of them is wishes (sometimes called optative), like sit Deus tibi benignus, "may the God be benign to you".
The English "may" does not imply uncertainty either, unless I'm mistaken.
"There may be" is uncertain by "may there be"...
Varro, writing in book 5 of De Lingua Latina, about how things are named in Latin (!), has many examples, though not exactly of the kind of sentence you're asking about. Here are a few.
Amnis id flumen quod circuit aliquod: nam ab ambitu amnis. Ab hoc qui circum Aternum habitant, Amiternini appellati.
An amnis is a river that goes around ...
Your translation is correct, apart from missing the word viri.
"The whole state was thanking" is indeed translated well with Tota civitas gratias agebat.
The expression gratias agere requires dative to indicate who is thanked.
Therefore if you want to thank "this man's brother" (frater huius viri), the dative expression you need is fratri huius viri.
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 ...
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 ...
Certainly. Allen and Greenough sec. 500:
The gerundive is sometimes used, like the present and perfect participles, in simple agreement with a noun:—
fortem et cōnservandum virum (Mil. 104), a brave man, and worthy to be preserved.
gravis iniūria facta est et nōn ferenda (Flacc. 84), a grave and intolerable wrong has been done.
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 ...
You are confusing gĕnu, -ūs ("knee") and gĕnus, -ĕris ("origin, lineage, stock").
The latter is a 3rd declension neuter noun, so the accusative singular is the same as the nominative singular. Hence, to fill in the blank:
Augustus affirmed that his lineage had arisen from Jupiter.
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 ...
The impersonal verb superest is regularly used for 'it remains (to)'/'all that remains is (to)': either superest ut + subjunctive, or quod superest.
superest ut ad extremas partes corporis ueniam, quae articulis inter se conseruntur (Celsus, De medicina 4.29.1)
superest ut promissis deus adnuat tandemque me hac sollicitudine exsoluat. (Pliny the ...
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 ...
Cicero, Ad familiares 8.10.3:
nosti Marcellum, quam tardus et parum efficax sit, itemque Servium, quam cunctator.
'You know Marcus, how slow he is and how ineffective, and likewise Servius, what a dawdler he is.'