Disputatio:Ignis

Unus

Interesting question. I'd have thought unus would agree with ignis, because in A est B ab/de/ex/in/post/trans C, our B would want to agree with A, not C (the gender of a noun governed by a preposition having nothing necessarily to do with the gender of other nouns in a sentence). Is it idiomatically otherwise? Did Romans argue about it, as English-speakers argue about "a number of X are/is"? IacobusAmor 14:17, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone squabbles about their own language =]. What I was thinking is "Ignis est unum (elementum) ex quattuor elementis." If you supply the assumed head noun, there is no question as to whether or not unum should be neuter. It's ambiguous when you leave it out. I wish I were at home near some books that talk about attraction of adjectives...--Ioshus ^(disp) 14:28, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's plausible. I was just wondering. (I wonder a lot.) IacobusAmor 14:30, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Unum, I don't see how it could be otherwise (well, that's an exageration, unus by "attraction" as above). Phrase it more simply and you'll see: Ignis est unum elementum, not Ignis est unus elementum. --Iustinus 18:59, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

gasoline

Quomodo dicatis " essence , benzina, gasolina" usus sum benzina ? --Marc mage 11:01, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Sane legi benzinum, non benzina. Reginaldus dicit "liquor ignifers".--Ioscius ^(disp) 15:23, 7 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

Putabatur

Re: [1]... By which I take it fire is no longer considered one of the elements in alchemy? Of course, it's certainly not a chemical element, but the traditional non-chemical elements more directly correspond to what are now called states of matter (cf. classical element). —Mucius Tever 17:42, 10 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Pantocrator 07:35, 10 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)