@Adam I think Russia made the statement that if vehicles of a country enter the fight, that country is considered to be at war with Russia. I saw that in connection to Poland.

In other news, the Russian embassy in Helsinki set up a hotline for reporting hostile behaviour against Russians in Finland. I don't like the tone of that at all...

@SebastianKoppehel Hmm... Is the preferred preposition ex? My gut says de. But I'm not sure that change alone would make it more classical.

@Sebastian: Thanks. The mood of President Zelensky seems increasingly to be--the Ukrainian people are fighting, alone, for the freedom of Europe. His options: (i) to continue this unequal struggle, with a rising death-toll, dreading the deployment of Russia's super-weapons; (ii) to concoct some rubbish "peace"-deal, which will last only as long as it takes for Russia to regroup & re-arm. You are President Zelensky: what are you going to do?

@Adam: Much depends on whether Putin remains rational, calm & sane. Is he? He has clearly been deceived by the FSB and his generals. Therefore, the assumption is, that there is no-one in whom he can trust. Putin's (domestic) enemies, seeing the world turn against him, may sense a now-or-never moment to be rid of him. Like a Roman emperor, he'll be looking over his shoulder, possibly with rising paranoia. If Putin is no longer rational, anything can happen...Anything!

@Joonas: I've been wondering how expat. Russians & Russian tourists are being treated, around the world. There's been nothing reported, in the media, at least not that I've seen. In Finland, they're getting some grief?

@tony Yeah, they're getting some grief, but most Finns know not to blame the average expatriate living in the west for the war.

Those Russians are likely to oppose the war themselves.

The embassy is getting more heat than the individuals from what I've understood.

@Joonas: This sort of persecution is inevitable in wartime. The only positive is that these Russians may tell their families, back home, what's really going on in this war. The government is still saying that they have lost 498 soldiers. That wasn't even true when it was first announced, two weeks ago.

@JoonasIlmavirta Well that's not good.

It would be good to know if Russia has set up a hotline like that in all countries with an embassy or if they're only doing it in specific countries.

@Adam Excellent question! I'd hope a journalist somewhere would have picked that up.

@Sebastian: Checked the line from Trinummus 2.2: it took a while without the line number (19), "ad plures"= "for the dead"; because the dead are many; right, I get it now! Thanks again.

Fessus sum quia a canibus excitus sum

Tres canes parvos habemus. Duo pomeranici et unus "mixed breed"

@Sebastian: That line (19): "quin prius me ad plures penetravi" = "Why have i not descended to the dead before (this)?". How does "me" come into it--past-perfect, "penetravi" includes "ego"; not "me"?

@Adam Fortasse 'mixtus.'

@cmw I wonder if there's something attested in conjunction with genus

Or some other word used for race/breed

@tony If you want to ping somebody, I believe you have to use their full name without spaces.

@Adam Parvi non sumus, nec tu nos habes!

@Cerberus Haehaehae

@tony It's reflective: se aliquo penetrare = se aliquo conferre = to go somewhere

@cmw For whatever reason, it worked this way as well ...

Isti tres canes cum uno capute singulo sunt

@JoonasIlmavirta I don't know that ex officially has preferred-pronoun status, but Cicero definitely uses it here and there. de, in and ab are also possible, plus the bare ablative.

Ubi sunt tres canes habentes unum caput commune?

@Cerberus Did I end up saying I had three dogs with one head?

Contrarius Cerberus

@SebastianKoppehel That's a serious surprise to me!

@Adam You did!

Or, actually, I now see what you mean.

I'm not sure, but I think you'd use plural or some other construction, to express that each dog has his own head.

The plural singula would spring to mind, the distributive adjective: one each.

@Cerberus 1000 soldiers lost their life in Latin.

@Cerberus It does look like the plural is used for that meaning.

Although L&S say the singular was ante- and post-classical

@cmw But "10 soldiers lost 1 wagon"? How many wagons are lost?

@Cerberus Just one. You've already specified that by adding a number. But if you were to replace unam with eorum, then you've lost 10.

@cmw Ok sure. But Adam used uno.

He did use singulo, though.

How would you say it?

@Adam Interesting.

Somehow, I didn't read your singulo as distributive, probably because it was singular (hah).

@Cerberus Say what, exactly?

What he was saying is, those three dogs have one head each.

Quisque canis unum caput habet.

Perhaps tres canes singulis capitibus sunt ?

@cmw Yeah, that's what I meant by "some other construction", quisque or similar.

@Cerberus Yeah, I'd say so.

Right.

But, apparently, pre- and post-classically, you might use tres canes singulo capite instead, as Adam found.

Some word denoting 'each' is what I would go with, but in your sentence, you need tribus canibus, for the dative of possession the possessor is in the dative.

I was trying to capture the ablativus qualitatis, after Adam's cum.

But I agree with you that the dativus possessivus would probably be more suitable.

Or normal.

"Those are three dogs of one head each".

Ah, got it.

I forgot when you'd use the genitive and when the ablative.

I think it had something to do with whether or not the quality was a single noun versus a noun with an adjective?

Fortasse: est caput unum utri cani.

Yeah, I think that construction would also work.

Utrique, you probably meant?

Uterque and quisque kind of have a distributive function, don't they?

or utri ex canium trium

You can do uter, too, iirc.

Oh, really?

Or is that only two?

Starting to forget the details. I should consult.

> Indef. rel., whichsoever of two, the one which

Right, I think anything with uter needs to be binary.

Yeah, you're right.

But you were right in that it can be used indefinitely!

So my original suggestion of quisque is better after all.

Is utrique a single word or utri + -que?

> C. Whichsoever of more than two: “quorum utrum ei acciderit,” Vitr. 7 praef.

Ah!

So it can be extended to more than two! But I suspect this will be rare.

@Adam A single word.

Whoa! But that must be rare.

^^ Exactly.

Romans could be sloppy, too...

I thought I had seen it with more than two, but you know, Vitruvius isn't really a polished writer.

@Adam Though it is really simply composed of uter + -que, the resulting meaning is quite different from the meaning of et uter. The same applies to quisque versus et (ali)quis.

@cmw Perhaps not polished, but structurally sound?

The enclitic -que can do funny things to certain words, mainly pronominals.

Ubi = where; ubique = anywhere, everywhere.

And you can even intensify it with cum: ubicumque.

@Cerberus Interesting shift in meaning

ubicumque = "literally anywhere" as opposed to just "anywhere"

Yes!

@Cerberus Is that a pun?

And ubicumque can also be used as a relative pronoun: ubicumque est, "wherever she may be".

@cmw Guilty!

@Cerberus I'll have you know I got a good chuckle out of it.

Ow now you're making me proud.

I'm not normally into puns at all.

@Cerberus Quite superb work.

And I know very little about Vitruvius except what his most well known work is about, really.

@Cerberus I'm more of a fan of that style of pun, rather than merely working off verbal similarities.

(No offense to you, Adam, and Joonas!)

@Cerberus Whatever it is, it's more my thing.

lol

We each have our moods.