With the third declension plural nominatives and accusatives taking the same form (-es), how do you tell object from subject in such sentences? By default I'd assume subjectivity for the first plural noun, but obviously that wouldn't work in passive-voice. With the other duplicate cases it's usually easy to tell from the context, but I'm having difficulty on this one.
Right. When I quoted Bickendan's use of the French word for "shit". Besides, if "Carol" really is your RL name, not only are they going to have to pass out a lot of warnings (many people have referred to you by that handle), but you yourself just informed us all that it's your name. Ask Ray how that worked out for him.
It can just as easily be O-S-V, though. Word order is generally far less important than conjugations and cases to fill roles in the sentence, and it's not uncommon to see things like servum dominus vituperavat. Of course with 3rd dcl/plural issues it'd be easy to assume nominative precedence, but would Latin writers have universally followed that guideline? Leones gladiatores petiverunt and gladiatores leones petiverunt could have the same meaning, one being passive and the other active. Or they could have different meanings, both active. Maybe I'm over-analysing this.
If you already knew all this shit (or think you do), why did you even ask? Is it because you're a dicklicking cunt? Yep. That must be it.
This thread just isn't right. From the title, I fully expected the first post to be Moriturus te salutat. Sad, not to have things work out the way you think they will...
