Disputatio:Orectolobus maculatus

Crescit ad 3 m in longitudinem

"In longitudinem" may seemingly cut the Gordian knot; but when I queried, in effect, about "Crescit ad 3 m long(a/um/us)," I was wondering whether the long- should agree with Orectolobus (as the unstated subject) or with m. or what. The model in biological prose (as I now observe) seems to favor agreement with the subject or head of the phrase. Examples from Stearn's Botanical Latin: "Pedunculus carpocephali validus ad 3 cm. longus, nudus, apice paleis filiformibus brevibus barbatus" (p. 179) and "Amenta subpraecocia lateralia divaricata demum pendula, e gemmis ad 9 mm. longis" (p. 191). So is the form with the accusative (in longitudinem) OK in classical style? (Neander, I always enjoy your corrections, so please keep helping!) IacobusAmor 16:30, 24 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically, it'd be "crescit ... longus", but I doubt that such a proleptic construction is good Latinity. Notice that those examples from Stearn involve an elliptic est or sunt, which is OK. If you use crescit, the normal construction is in longitudinem, in latitudinem, &c. This type of construction is OK in classical style. Even Caesar uses it. :-) --Neander 17:24, 24 Augusti 2010 (UTC)