Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
Let's say it IS the castle (or part of it): perhaps "indistinct" is a better way to put it? There's something apse-like, but the ruined state of the site makes it hard to discern. Almost what Simon says, but not exactly...
Hold on, are we talking about the little church or the actual castle? The castle's a ruin. If there was an apse it's hard to make it out. Which is possibly what non distinta means. Either way Simon's nearest.
Leaning towards Desertfox's idea, but before that was thinking of an apse that's actually a very big niche: inside you see an apse (incurving recess with an arch), but outside there's no corresponding bulge - wall v.thick, "apse" too shallow to stick out
desertfox may be right, but just can't help feeling that if the author wanted to say undistinguished/indistinctive, he/she would have put it differently (senza pregi, per es.). More to the point, an apse is simply an architectural feature, and it would be
Automatic update in 00:
40 mins confidence:
an apse without distinctive features
Explanation: not particulary refined
Ellen Kraus Austria Local time: 20:41 Native speaker of: German PRO pts in category: 10
Explanation: Strange expression! Not, as far as I am aware, a technical term in the strict sense; simply, I presume the author means that the apse is either very small or inexistent. Either way, 'no distinct apse' should cover it
simon tanner Italy Local time: 20:41 Specializes in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 143
Explanation: I am disagreeing with Simon since if there's no distinct apse then there's no apse. On the other hand, a very shallow segmental apse might be visible from outside (or inside) But I'm not confident at all.