4 ms·
The title should be "ludus mortuus est", the game is dead. Ludus takes the nominative, since it's the subject of the sentence. And mortuus also takes the nomina
by atlantic 3y ago
The title should be "ludus mortuus est", the game is dead. Ludus takes the nominative, since it's the subject of the sentence. And mortuus also takes the nominative, because it's a nominative complement. Google Translate will only take you so far.
- lordnacho 3y agoReminds me of the Life of Brian where the Roman officer catches the graffiti and does the whole Latin lesson.
- parkaboy 3y agoI just have to link it here, because it's so good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdqXT9k-050 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdqXT9k-050
- chrisweekly 3y agohahaha thanks, it'd been decades since I saw that
- iakov 3y agoTurns out grammar nazis were a thing in ancient rome! Hilarious, I need to check out the movie, thanks for laugh in the morning.
- masto 3y agoI guess it's irony to use an AI translator to come up with the title of an article about how AI is taking our jerbs.
- kibwen 3y agoThere's no existing market for Latin translator jobs, because everyone knows the best way to translate a Latin sentence is to translate it poorly and wait for someone to correct it in the comments.
- nescioquid 3y agoI recommend never providing unsolicited Latin advice unless the phrase has been tattooed in flesh or used as the name of a legal entity (e.g. "Atlas Obscura").
- jan_Inkepa 3y agoGoogle translate gives "ludus mortuus est". 'Ludum' (vs 'ludus') possibly comes from the game jam 'ludum dare' (where 'ludum' is okay because it's meant to be in the accusative - the object of 'dare' - 'to give/make').
- CobrastanJorji 3y agoIndeed; I assumed that the goal was to reference the game jam. But I ended up thinking that the title was a failure not because of grammar but because it makes my mind autocomplete the phrase in a way that the article does not intend. I see "Ludus mortuus est" and I immediately want to respond "Vivat ludus!"
- waveBidder 3y agonot sic semper tyrranis?
- yawboakye 3y ago> and mortuus also takes the nominative, because it's a nominative complement. this is wrong. mortuus, dead, is the perfect active participle of morī, to die. its adjectival in nature, hence the attribution via esse. not too different from english. although in latin one is more likely to write ludus mortuus. the est naturally is implied.
- hackyhacky 3y agoI'm not sure what you're objecting to: it can be a nominative complement and and a perfect active adjectival participle.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoNo, it can't be both of those things. On one analysis, it is a complement to the verb est; on the other analysis, it is the verb. Mortuus est is always going to be analyzed as the 3rd person singular perfect passive† indicative form of morior, "has died" or just "died", not "is dead". That's what combining the participle with esse means. Now, mortuus could just be a non-participial adjective instead. You could form a sentence that way that looked identical, ludus mortuus est, and it would mean "the game is dead", which just happens to be semantically identical with "the game has died". You can't be dead in the present without having finished dying in the past, and you can't have finished dying in the past without being dead in the present. So we make the assumption that mortuus est is a verb, and not a predicative verb phrase, just because morior is a very common verb and this is a normal way to use it. The assumption is analogous to the assumption in English that when somebody says "time flies like an arrow", they are talking about the rapidity of the passage of time, and not exhorting the listener to apply stopwatches to flies the same way they would to an arrow. † To the extent that morior is a passive verb. It isn't -- we call it "deponent", an active verb that takes grammatically passive forms, like the English verb to be born -- and so mortuus est is just a perfect active form.