Thread: Please translate or explain the phrase

Originally Posted by translations.nm.ru

Originally Posted by Dogboy182

Then it should have been "was the homo sapien". No 'S'.

"Homo sapiens" is a Latin phrase meaning "sentient man". It's singular. In English, when it refers to humans as a species, it is often used with plural verbs, but it is singular nevertheless.

I'm no expert on Latin, so please excuse my ignorance. I just remember seeing it used in a plural form, to refer to humans in plural, as a species. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

Can you point to a Latin reference showing it as singular? Not that I'm doubting, just curious, because I remember hearing "sapien" being used as singular by university lecturers, and "sapiens" being used as plural. And unfortunately I'm traveling now, without a handy-dandy authoritative dictionary to check.

In Latin Homo is the nominative singular for human being.
(in Latin "men" and "women" were both "homines", as opposed to other animals; in Latin man as in male human was "vir")

Sing.
Nom: Homo
Gen: Hominis
Dat: Homini
Acc: Hominem
Voc: Homo
Abl: Homine

Plur.
Homines
Hominum
Hominibus
Homines
Homines
Hominibus

Likewise Sapiens is the present participle of Sapio (To Know) used as an adjective and declined as such. (2nd class adjective)

Sapiens
Sapientis
Sapienti
Sapientem
Sapiens
Sapienti

Sapientes
Sapientium
Sapientibus
Sapientes
Sapientes
Sapientibus

There is just no way that a Latin noun ending in -o can be a nominative plural (or any plural case at all, regardless of the declension it belongs to)

See http://www.discipulus.it/art.asp?Art=111
for example. (Sorry, the page is in Italian)

Homo is in the first group of the 3rd declension: "nomi maschili, femminili e neutri imparisillabi, con il tema terminante in una sola consonante", meaning that the noun (be it masculine, feminine or neuter) has a change in the number of syllables going from the nominative to the genitive (homo->hominis) and its root ends in one consonant (the root being <homin> for homo).

Hope it's clear enough

woof-woof!!!



Thanks midnight, for clearing that up.

You guys are such a bunch of homines sapientis!

According to Webster's and the Oxford Dictionary; "Homo sapiens" only exists only in the plural and cannot be a reference to an individual by him/herself.

Originally Posted by samba

According to Webster's and the Oxford Dictionary; "Homo sapiens" only exists only in the plural and cannot be a reference to an individual by him/herself.

ah-HA!!!

I thought so!
Tak..."Was the homo sapiens..." is bad grammar!!!

On a side note, just yesterday as I was searching through the highly respected British magazine "Speak Up" (very popular here in Spain, and written specifically for teaching educated, grammatically correct "BBC English")...there was an article in advanced English which referred to "Sapiens" as a plural form.

I rest my case.

Sapiens is defined a word by itself, but it's meaning is "Homo Sapiens". Same rules apply.

Originally Posted by samba

According to Webster's and the Oxford Dictionary; "Homo sapiens" only exists only in the plural and cannot be a reference to an individual by him/herself.

Big deal, if that's the case English borrowed it from Latin incorrectly.

Originally Posted by midnightsun

Originally Posted by samba

According to Webster's and the Oxford Dictionary; "Homo sapiens" only exists only in the plural and cannot be a reference to an individual by him/herself.

Big deal, if that's the case English borrowed it from Latin incorrectly.

Isn't borrowed incorrect Latin basically what the English language is about?

Originally Posted by samba

According to Webster's and the Oxford Dictionary; "Homo sapiens" only exists only in the plural and cannot be a reference to an individual by him/herself.

I find this rather doubtful, Homo sapiens is a species, and is used in "Encyclopaedia Britannica online" in a singular form.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...%20sapiens&ct=

Originally Posted by adoc

I find this rather doubtful, Homo sapiens is a species, and is used in "Encyclopaedia Britannica online" in a singular form.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...%20sapiens&ct=

Because they're talking about them as one species and not about a few of them physically. You can use Homo Sapiens either in plural or singular depending on what I just wrote in the prior sentence.

I hate to be anal about this, but this is related to my work, so here it is. Noone would write "twenty Homo sapiens were blah-blah" in a scientific article. It'll be rephrased as "twenty human subjects were..." or "twenty adults (Homo sapiens) were...". Colloquailly, anything goes, I have no problem with that. My point was that using Homo sapiens in singular is at least not incorrect in English, not to mention Latin where it, in fact, is singular as explained by midnightsun.

Can somebody start a new thread?
This topic is too old. I am tired of reading about "Homo sapiens". Who cares

There has to be someone wanting to clear something up in the English language. That's basicaly where I shine...

3 entries found for Homo sapiens.

Homo sa·pi·ens n.
The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.
[New Latin Hom sapins, species name : Latin hom, man + Latin sapins, wise, rational, present participle of sapere, to be wise.]


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Homo sapiens
n : the only surviving hominid; species to which modern man belongs; bipedal primate having language and ability to make and use complex tools; brain 1400 cc [syn: Homo sapiens]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
Main Entry: Ho·mo sa·pi·ensPronunciation: "hO-(")mO-'sap-E-&nz, -'sA-pE-, -"enz
Function: noun
: MANKIND : HUMANKIND


Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.