Capite

[john abshire]

Nec modo pede, sed etiam capite aeger est.

1) Not only (his) foot, but also (his) head is sick.
?
2) He is sick, not only in (his) foot, but also in the head.
?
I think sentence 2 must be closer, with pede and capite in the ablative?

 

[Pacifica]

Yes.

 

[Clemens]

Does it mean he has a headache or that he isn't mentally sound? I ask because "sick in the head" in English definitely means the latter.

 

[john abshire]

Does it mean he has a headache or that he isn't mentally sound? I ask because "sick in the head" in English definitely means the latter.

From context “capite aeger est” means ‘not mentally sound’. (A boy fell out of a tree and hurt his foot, but there was no mention of head injury.)

 

[Pacifica]

In fact, I found the context and it does say he has a headache:

 

[Pacifica]

But I understand how you could read it as "this boy is sick in the head, climbing trees like that" lol.

 

[john abshire]

“Medicus dicit ‘Quintus dentes aegrum habere’ et Quintus dicit ‘pedes et caput dolere , non dentem.’”
The doctor says ‘Quntus has a hurt tooth’ and Quintus says ‘(my) foot and head hurt, not (my) tooth.’”
Do you interject (my) into the sentence so that it makes sense? If so why isn’t meus used?

 

[Pacifica]

This author has the peculiar and potentially confusing habit of putting indirect statements in quotation marks, but you can see that these are indirect statements because the subjects are accusative and the verbs infinitive. So it's like this:

"The doctor says Quintus has a diseased tooth. Quintus says his foot and his head hurt, not his tooth."

(Note that it says dentem and pedem, not dentes and pedes.)

Possessives are often omitted when it's clear from the context who the owner is. That's almost systematic with body parts.

 

[kizolk]

This author has the peculiar and potentially confusing habit of putting indirect statements in quotation marks

IINM that's the chapter where he introduces AcI; while the quotation marks are a little awkward, I think it was his way to show the reader the connection between this construction and indirect statements. It would be interesting to see if he does it in later parts of the book.

 

[Pacifica]

I haven't checked the whole book. I only know this isn't the first time instances like these have been quoted on here (and they've confused people once or twice). I don't know which chapter(s) the others came from.

To be fair, I've seen the practice in other texts as well, so it isn't a completely idiosyncratic oddity. More like a convention different from what we're used to (it could be standard in some languages, for all I know).

 

[kizolk]

I haven't checked the whole book. I only know this isn't the first time instances like these have been quoted on here (and they've confused people once or twice). I don't know which chapter(s) the others came from.

I've found another example a few chapters later:

Mārcus: "Is domī est apud mātrem suam. Quīntus dīcit 'sē aegrum esse'."

 

[john abshire]

But I understand how you could read it as "this boy is sick in the head, climbing trees like that" lol.

The initial question was whether the boy had pain in his head or he was “sick in the head”. Better said, what was the meaning of the sentence (pain or mentally deranged)?

“Medicus dicit ‘Quintum dentem aegrum habere’ et Quintus dicit ‘pedem et caput dolere, non dentem.’”
“The doctor says ‘Quintus has a tooth sickness’ and Quintus says ‘(my) foot and head hurt, not (my) tooth.’”

-I think that the question of whether the meaning is “mentally deranged” or “head pain” depends on the verb. And re-thinking my initial interpretation, I believe I was wrong. In the sentence ‘Quintus dicit ‘pedem et caput dolere.’’, the verb is dolere, and Quintus is saying that his foot and head hurt. In the previous sentence; “Medicus dicit ‘Quintum dentem aegrum habere.’” “The doctor says, ‘Quintus has a tooth illness (or sickness).’”
Caput dolere means that the head hurts, dentem aegrum habere means (he) has a tooth illness. So I concede. The boy has a headache (and a tooth illness, but his tooth may not hurt right now).

 

[Pacifica]

a tooth illness

Not sure if you intended that as a literal translation or a rewording. If the former, note that dentem aegrum literally means "a diseased tooth".

 

[john abshire]

Not sure if you intended that as a literal translation or a rewording. If the former, note that dentem aegrum literally means "a diseased tooth".

I looked up aegrum, and I am really confused now. Aegrum is a neuter noun meaning “a diseased part of the body”. How does dentem aegrum mean “a diseased tooth”?
If aegrum were an adjective it would fit, but how does aegrum work as a noun here?

 

[Clemens]

Remember, adjectives can become nouns (substantives) when used alone, the neuter form usually being used to refer to things rather than people. Aeger would mean a sick person, aegrum a sick thing, such as a body part.

 

[john abshire]

Remember, adjectives can become nouns (substantives) when used alone, the neuter form usually being used to refer to things rather than people. Aeger would mean a sick person, aegrum a sick thing, such as a body part.

What I mean is; if the sentence were:
Aegrum est dentem, that makes sense (except for genders), it means “the sick body part is a tooth.” However, aegrum dentem is two nouns together. How does that mean “a sick tooth”?

 

[Dantius]

IINM that's the chapter where he introduces AcI; while the quotation marks are a little awkward, I think it was his way to show the reader the connection between this construction and indirect statements. It would be interesting to see if he does it in later parts of the book.

He does it for the whole book, even in Book 2.

 

[Dantius]

aegrum dentem is two nouns together

It's not; aegrum is an adjective. It is the masculine accusative singular of the adjective aeger meaning "sick." There's no good reason to say that there exists a noun aegrum; that's just the adjective aeger used in the neuter as a substantive.

Aegrum est dentem, that makes sense (except for genders)

The issue isn't the gender, but the case (there's never an accusative after sum). If you're equating two nouns, the gender doesn't matter (e.g. caput Italiae est Roma = "the capital of Italy is Rome"; the fact that Roma is feminine and caput is neuter is irrelevant).

 

[john abshire]

It's not; aegrum is an adjective. It is the masculine accusative singular of the adjective aeger meaning "sick." There's no good reason to say that there exists a noun aegrum; that's just the adjective aeger used in the neuter as a substantive.


The issue isn't the gender, but the case (there's never an accusative after sum). If you're equating two nouns, the gender doesn't matter (e.g. caput Italiae est Roma = "the capital of Italy is Rome"; the fact that Roma is feminine and caput is neuter is irrelevant).

Online dictionary did not define aegrum as an adjective, only a noun, but I see in my book that aeger is an adjective. Thanks

 

[john abshire]

The issue isn't the gender, but the case (there's never an accusative after sum).

Why is there not ever an accusative after sum?