Welcome
Who is Catullus?  Links
Catullus Forum   Search Translations
 

  Available English translations:  
 
1 2 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 14b 15 16 17 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 58b 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78b 79
80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
90 91 92 93 94 95 95b 96 97 98
99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116
 

  Available languages:  
 
Latin
Afrikaans   Albanian   Arabic
Brazilian Port.   Bulgarian   Castellano
Catalan   Chinese   Croatian
Czech   Danish   Dutch
English   Esperanto   Estonian
Finnish   French   Frisian
German   Greek   Gronings
Hebrew   Hindi   Hungarian
Interlingua   Irish   Italian
Japanese   Korean   Limburgs
Norwegian   Persian   Polish
Portuguese   Rioplatense   Romanian
Russian   Scanned   Serbian
Spanish   Swedish   Telugu
Turkish   Ukrainian   Vercellese
Welsh  
 

  Gaius Valerius Catullus     
About Me
Send a Reaction
Read Reactions
 

 
Catullus Forum

Main  ::  Translations - per Carmen  ::  Carmen 7  ::  Est not Sunt

<<  •  >>

AuthorMessage
Guest
Posted on Thu Feb 01, 2007 07:57:53  
"So many kisses are enough and more than enough for mad Catullus to kiss you"

Why is it that the plural basia is put with the singular est? Could someone please explain this to me?

Is it possible to translate it this way with an accusitive subject?

"That you kiss so many kisses is enough and more than enough for mad Catullus"
Chris Weimer
Posted at Sat Feb 03, 2007 19:27:32  Quote
A more literal rendition would be, "It is enough and more [than enough] (or enough and beyond) for crazy Catullus to kiss you many kisses".
Guest
Posted at Mon Feb 05, 2007 17:46:28  Quote
I thought of that, but wouldn't te have to be tibi if you want to make it an indirect object like that? Isn't this basic grammar? I mean when "Tim gives you many dogs", "you" cannot be a direct object.
Chris Weimer
Posted at Tue Feb 06, 2007 05:28:52  Quote
Quote:
  I thought of that, but wouldn't te have to be tibi if you want to make it an indirect object like that? Isn't this basic grammar? I mean when "Tim gives you many dogs", "you" cannot be a direct object.

No, not quite. He's not giving Lesbia kisses, but kissing her kisses. The word "kisses" is already implies as the internal accusative of basio, and te is the direct object. It's a peculiarity of Latin.

Chris
 


  ÔŅĹ copyright 1995-2010 by Rudy Negenborn
   Nedstat