Gladius

[john abshire]

Gladius est tres pedes longus
The sword is three feet long
I don’t think this is right. I need help.

 

[Pacifica]

It is right.

 

[john abshire]

It is right.

Longitudo gladii est tres pedes
The length of the sword is three feet.
?

 

[Pacifica]

That's grammatically correct but trium pedum would be a bit more usual, I think.

 

[john abshire]

That's grammatically correct but trium pedum would be a bit more usual, I think.

This answer is more to the point, and that is “what does ‘tres pedes’ agree with, following sum, es, est, etc. ? I remember the ‘predicate nominative’? Is that the general rule? (Vs accusative)?

 

[Pacifica]

Tres pedes would be a predicate nominative there after est.

However, in gladius tres pedes longus est, it's an accusative of measurement depending on longus.

 

[john abshire]

Tres pedes would be a predicate nominative there after est.

However, in gladius tres pedes longus est, it's an accusative of measurement depending on longus.

How “does it work” when the genders don’t match?
E.g. mensa est tres pedes longus/a.
The table is three feet long.
It seems that “three feet long” is all together an adjective describing “table”, or all together a noun replacing “table”; but in either case the gender (+case and number) would need to match.

 

[Pacifica]

The adjective longus must agree with mensa. The noun pes has its own gender.

 

[john abshire]

The adjective longus must agree with mensa. The noun pes has its own gender.

I can see that.
The table is long. Mensa est longa.
The table is three feet long. Mensa est tres pedes longa.
(Assuming the Latin is correct)
It seems tres pedes is describing longa, or defining longa.
but, pes has a different gender from mensa (and longa).
?

 

[Pacifica]

The table is three feet long. Mensa est tres pedes longa.
(Assuming the Latin is correct)

It is.

It seems tres pedes is describing longa, or defining longa.
but, pes has a different gender from mensa (and longa).
?

That's right.

 

[john abshire]

It is.

That's right.

Then, is this just an oddity in, or exception of, the language?
In cases I know of (adjective/ noun) where a word, or group of words, describe another, the genders match.

 

[Pacifica]

Then, is this just an oddity in, or exception of, the language?

No.

In cases I know of (adjective/ noun) where a word, or group of words, describe another, the genders match.

An adjective agrees with its noun, like longa with mensa here.

Each noun has its own gender. Pes is masculine, and will not turn feminine just because it's mentioned in relation with a feminine table. This is not an exception. It's just normal.

 

[Pacifica]

Look at it this way:

What is "long"? The table. So the adjective longa refers to mensa and must agree with it. Now, how long is the table? Three feet. That gives tres pedes, an adverbial phrase (of the specific kind "accusative of measurement") modifying the adjective longa. Pedes is a noun, with the numeral adjective tres agreeing with it.

 

[john abshire]

Look at it this way:

What is "long"? The table. So the adjective longa refers to mensa and must agree with it. Now, how long is the table? Three feet. That gives tres pedes, an adverbial phrase (of the specific kind "accusative of measurement") modifying the adjective longa. Pedes is a noun, with the numeral adjective tres agreeing with it.

THANK YOU!
Seriously,
my question may seem picky, but it really bothered me how this worked together.
So, tres pedes is in the accusative, not nominative as one would presume following est. I will look up “accusative of measurement”.
Thanks again.

 

[Pacifica]

So, tres pedes is in the accusative, not nominative as one would presume following est.

Tres pedes doesn't go with est. The whole phrase tres pedes longa does, but since the main element of that phrase is longa, you can say that it's principally longa that goes with est. Tres pedes goes with longa.

 

[john abshire]

Tres pedes doesn't go with est. The whole phrase tres pedes longa does, but since the main element of that phrase is longa, you can say that it's principally longa that goes with est. Tres pedes goes with longa.

I understand. I must have misstated.
I meant that since the verb is est, one would think that the entire predicate would be in the nominative, and it’s not. Only longa is in the nominative.

 

[Bitmap]

I meant that since the verb is est, one would think that the entire predicate would be in the nominative, and it’s not.

That's because the measure tres pedes depends on the adjective longa, not the verb est.

 

[Godmy]

one would think that the entire predicate would be in the nominative

Widely speaking, the predicate is everything else that doesn't belong to the subject [phrase], but in a more narrow view, there is something like the head of the predicate and it's the head that agrees(!) in case with the subject (and the subject is in 90%+ nominative*) but nothing more than that! (In case if the head is inflected in case; if the head is a verb like in "Dominus sedet", then there is no case agreement, of course)

The head of the predicate here would be "longa"... anything else connected to it is not the head of the predicate anymore and it takes the case according to its own internal grammatical rules... (if that makes sense)

*if the subject was accusative, the head of the predicate would be accusative too, because it would agree in case with the subject, but that happens for the subject only in an Accusativus cum Infinitivo clause (which is not this case); e.g. gladium longum esse videô

 

[john abshire]

Tres pedes would be a predicate nominative there after est.

However, in gladius tres pedes longus est, it's an accusative of measurement depending on longus.

I’m still confused.
The length is three feet.
Longitudo est tres pedes.
Is tres pedes an “accusative of measurement”?
Is there an adjective (long) understood after “pedes” that would be “longa” to agree with longitudo?

 

[Pacifica]

No. There, tres pedes is nominative because it's what the length "is" (est).