Ed Cryer wrote:
>
> "John W Kennedy" <jwkenne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:480e2929$0$15173$607ed4bc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> John W Kennedy wrote:
>>> Would this be correct?
>>>
>>> Libri foetidi scaenici non indigemus.
>>>
>>> Can it be improved? Is "liber scaenicus" right to begin with? My
>>> dictionary offers nothing. Perhaps "libellus scaenicus" would be
>>> better? I'm trying to avoid either "comoedus" and "tragicus".
>>
>> Arrggghhhh! That's "Libros foetidos scaenicos", of course. I'm not
>> normally that idiotic, but finding the idiom had me spinning my wheels
>> so much that I completely forgot first-week grammar.
>
> 3rd-week grammar might have informed you that not all verbs take the
> accusative case.
Since 'indigeo' usually 'takes' the genitive, the original could, I
suppose,
be legitimately construed as genitive singular.
But JWK does not inform us precisely what he is seeking to express, not
least with regard to "scaenicus".
Patruus
Heading south:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2008/MAM915-chart1.gif
|
