| | |
| | 1 Korrik 2011 15:09 |
| | Hi Lilly,
Can I have a bridge for evaluation, please. CC: lilian canaledata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/32d86/32d862ec051a192a1a0cb5bc88d7e74d0d1757a1" alt="" |
| | 1 Korrik 2011 15:53 |
| | "To those who gave me life (birth)" (referring to his/her parents) |
| | 1 Korrik 2011 19:12 |
| | Thanks a lot!
---
Dear Alex
Some changes definitely needed:
Quibus mihi vita dederunt.
--> Eis qui vitam mihi dederunt.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/990b8/990b87016bec74804ff25d4b758727dd3443d088" alt="" |
| | 1 Korrik 2011 20:45 |
| | vita m
No attraction of the relative pronoun allowed and no omission of the antecedant pronoun?
It's so common that I started to think that it's a firm rule.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9969e/9969ea555067c404a59cc8d091640fbe607bbf0a" alt="" |
| | 1 Korrik 2011 21:54 |
| | Not this time, dear Alex. I'm sorry.
I'll try to show you when you could use the grammatical attraction. Compare the sentence with the following one:
"Eis quibus vitam meam dedi" or simply: "Quibus vitam meam dedi".
"eis" and "quibus" = the same case (dative). That's why the attraction is possible here, but not in your sentence. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c0ba5/c0ba5057426bb7f19f92540e3264ef82f4aa12a1" alt="" |
| | 1 Korrik 2011 23:48 |
| | |
| | 2 Korrik 2011 13:10 |
| | |
| | 2 Korrik 2011 13:14 |
| | |
| | 2 Korrik 2011 13:20 |
| | Ha, ha, I claimed exactly the same during studing both of them... data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c0ba5/c0ba5057426bb7f19f92540e3264ef82f4aa12a1" alt="" |