# Servus in horto est.



## silverfire

Does this sentence mean “There is a slave in the garden.” or “The slave is in the garden.”? My book says that it means the former, but I think that would have been “Est servus in horto.” instead.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete amici!

In the absence of any other contextual indications, it could be either, or, for that matter "_A_ slave is in the garden", or "There is a slave in _a_ garden".

This is a typically jejune, but for pedagogical purposes necessary, bit of _la plume de ma tante_-style over-simplification of the complexities of real language in real life.

Σ


----------



## silverfire

Thanks.
But you do agree that "Est servus in horto." could only mean "The/A slave is in the garden.", right?


----------



## wandle

silverfire said:


> Est servus in horto


Each noun could be definite or indefinite (with 'the' or 'a').
_Est _could mean 'there is' or it could be emphasising 'is' (e.g. 'The slave certainly is in a garden').


----------



## silverfire

Thanks.


----------



## Ali Smith

silverfire said:


> Thanks.
> But you do agree that "Est servus in horto." could only mean "The/A slave is in the garden.", right?


Yes, that is correct. However, _Servus in horto est._ is truly ambiguous.


----------



## Sobakus

Ali Smith said:


> Yes, that is correct. However, _Servus in horto est._ is truly ambiguous.


No, the OP was right in the original message when they say that “There is a slave in the garden” would have been _Est servus in horto._ This sentence cannot under any circumstances express the unmarked proposition “The/A slave is in the garden”, which is what _Servus in horto est _means by default. _*Est* servus in horto_ can mean “The slave _*is *_in the garden!”, though, as wandle has already said – but you need to stress _*est*_ and destress the rest of the sentence. It's equivalent to just saying _Est._


----------

