# putatur esse



## Casquilho

Salvete!
Could you please tell me if this construction is proper Latin:

_““sisymbria” dicit Ovidius, herbam mentham putatur esse…”_
“Ovid says “sisymbria”, it’s thought to be the mint herb...”

I’m not sure about the use of _esse _and the accusative for _herbam mentham_. Thanks in advance.


----------



## wandle

> ““sisymbria” dicit Ovidius, herbam mentham putatur esse…”


There are several problems here. 
The accusative case is indeed wrong: the nominative is required. 
If you intend to make it all one sentence, you need to connect the clauses with a suitable conjunction. If not, you need two separate sentences. A comma on its own is not enough.
*Sisymbria* is plural, but _*putatur*_ is singular. 

Lewis & Short give the word as *sisymbrium*: 





> a fragrant herb sacred to Venus, perh. wildthyme or mint


They are saying it is unidentified. Are you aware of some later research which indicates it is mint?


----------



## Dib

wandle said:


> There are several problems here.
> The accusative case is indeed wrong: the nominative is required.
> ...
> *Sisymbria* is plural, but _*putatur*_ is singular.



Could "sisymbria" be accusative plural here? I am thinking in the lines of what you told me some months ago in another thread:



wandle said:


> Both the passive forms that you mention (*Dictum est te documenta intueri* and *Dictus/Dicta es documenta intueri*) are correct grammatical Latin.



It seems to me that 3rd sing (neut) passive verb of quotation (dictum est/putatur) + accusative of subject (te/sisymbria) in the quoted nonfinite clause is possible. Isn't it?


----------



## wandle

Dib said:


> I am thinking in the lines of what you told me some months ago in another thread


Either of the two constructions from your thread could be used here: but not mixed together. 
Unfortunately in post 1 it is not clear exactly what *Casquilho* means to say, either from the Latin or the English.

It seems he is commenting on an extract from Ovid. If so, an ordinary sentence need not necessarily be written out in full: but it depends on what he wants to say.


----------



## Dib

wandle said:


> Either of the two constructions from your thread could be used here: but not mixed together.
> Unfortunately in post 1 it is not clear exactly what *Casquilho* means to say, either from the Latin or the English.
> 
> It seems he is commenting on an extract from Ovid. If so, an ordinary  sentence need not necessarily be written out in full: but it depends on  what he wants to say.



Thanks for the comment. Could you, please, verify if my following attempts at employing the two structures are correct? (ignoring the "dicit ovidius" bit):
1. "Sisymbrium herba mentha esse putatur."
2. "Sisymbrium herbam mentham esse putatur."

Thanks in advance. If they are correct, Casquilho was probably aiming at a variation on (2).


----------



## wandle

Both are possible, but in practice the former would be preferred.


Dib said:


> (ignoring the "dicit ovidius" bit)


Of course that would simplify thngs, but Casquilho will have had his reasons for it. (This can also be managed, depending on what he intended.)


----------



## Dib

wandle said:


> Both are possible, but in practice the former would be preferred.



Thanks.



> Of course that would simplify thngs, but Casquilho will have had his reasons for it. (This can also be managed, depending on what he intended.)



Could the sentence in the opening post be translated as:
1. "Sisymbriums", says Ovid, "are thought to be a mint plant"?
 or maybe, staying more faithful to the syntax of the quoted sentence:
2. "It is thought", says Ovid, "that sisymbriums are a mint plant"?
Of course the second one fails to convey the emphatic topic position of "sisymbria" in the Latin version.


----------



## wandle

I think he meant to present it as a comment on a word in a text, in other words, an annotation, which would be different again. It is for him to say.


----------

